A worker was diagnosed with an occupational disease while their employer was covered by Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. as Liberty Northwest, however their employer left Liberty and obtained coverage under the Montana State Fund several years after her initial diagnosis. The symptoms of her carpal tunnel worsened, and she sought further treatment. She was still working for her same employer and it was determined by the Montana Supreme Court that Liberty was still liable for her claim.

Kim Wiard started working for Tricon Timber in 2002 and was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in 2010 or 2011. Liberty Northwest was the company’s workers’ comp insurer and treated her occupational disease in August of 2011. Wiard transferred to another job in the company and her symptoms got better. She did not continue treatments at that time. In 2012 or early 2013 she moved positions again, and said this new job was more demanding.

On November 1, 2013 Tricon switched insurers and the Montana State Fund replaced Liberty.

Ms. Wiard sought medical treatment for pain in both her wrists on February 17, 2014 and was taken off work. Her condition worsened, and she was diagnosed with acute exacerbation of carpal tunnel syndrome. She underwent an emergency carpal tunnel release on her left wrist, and got her right wrist done in March 2014.

Wiard filed an occupational disease claim for the emergency surgery and the Montana State Fund denied her claim, saying her diagnosis preceded their insurance coverage. She submitted her claim to Liberty Northwest who also denied her, saying that the fund should be liable. The State Fund paid her benefits and then filed a cross motion for summary judgment in a Workers’ Compensation Court. They granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty and concluded she had reached maximum medical improvement from her earlier carpal tunnel diagnosis, but her job duties later materially aggravated her disease.

Upon appeal, the Montana Supreme Court found that whether she had reached maximum medical improvement or aggravated her disease was not relevant to the question at hand. Rather the question was whether the initial insurer was liable for a recurrence of occupational disease. They reversed the lower decision and said Liberty was liable, because they could not demonstrate that she was suffering from a new and different occupational disease.

Read more from Business Insurance and read the whole case here.