## Facts

- Victoria Kloepfer worked as a general laborer for Bechtel Construction Company at a refinery in Billings, Montana.
- She filed an occupational disease claim that the insurer, Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Company, accepted.
- During a work-hardening rehabilitation program in April 1992, she injured her back while pushing a gravel-filled wheelbarrow.
- Testing in March 1993 showed a small central disc protrusion at L5–S1; she later underwent an L5–S1 lumbar fusion but continued to report essentially the same pain.
- After reaching maximum medical healing, she sought permanent total disability (PTD) benefits, asserting her pain prevented gainful employment.
- An independent medical panel concluded she could perform sedentary and light-duty work full-time.
- Her treating surgeon testified she could likely work at least part-time but anticipated significant absenteeism and nonetheless opined she was permanently totally disabled due to expected unemployability.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found she was physically capable of returning to work full-time and concluded that lack of motivation, not physical incapacity, explained her failure to work; it denied PTD benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial credible evidence supported the Workers’ Compensation Court’s finding that Kloepfer had a reasonable prospect of physically performing regular employment after maximum medical healing.
2. Whether the Workers’ Compensation Court correctly applied § 39-71-116(23), MCA, in denying PTD benefits where the claimant’s asserted inability to work was attributed to non-physical factors rather than a disabling physical condition.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying PTD benefits.
- The court held the Workers’ Compensation Court’s findings were supported by substantial credible evidence, including the independent medical panel’s assessment of full-time sedentary/light-duty capacity.
- The court held the Workers’ Compensation Court permissibly resolved conflicts in medical testimony and was not required to accept the treating physician’s ultimate disability opinion.
- The court concluded that, because Kloepfer retained physical capacity for regular employment, she did not meet the statutory definition of PTD.

## Legal Principles

- Permanent total disability under § 39-71-116(23), MCA, requires a physical condition resulting from an industrial injury, after maximum healing, that leaves the worker without a reasonable prospect of physically performing regular employment.
- The unavailability of immediate job openings is not considered in determining PTD.
- On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Court’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial credible evidence; appellate courts do not reweigh conflicting evidence.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court may choose between competing medical opinions and assess credibility; a treating physician’s disability opinion is not controlling.
- Evidence of retained capacity for sedentary or light-duty work can defeat a PTD claim even where the claimant reports continuing pain and other non-physical factors affect employability.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court upheld denial of PTD benefits because substantial credible evidence showed the claimant remained physically capable of regular sedentary or light-duty employment after maximum healing, and the statutory PTD standard turns on physical incapacity rather than labor-market effects attributed to non-physical factors.


Kloepfer v. Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 916 P.2d 1310 (Mont. 1996)