JONES v ST REGIS PAPER CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 TERRY JONES, Claimant and Appellant, vs. ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Employer and ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Hon. William Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Fennessy, Crocker and Fennessy, Libby, Montana For Respondent: Stephen C. Berg, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 1, 1981 Decided : Filed: lfEc 2 ? F9N1 w C Clerk DEC 3 I 19e1 M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . C l a i m a n t a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t upholding d e f e n d a n t ' s d e n i a l of w o r k e r s ' compensation benefits. The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a cornpensable i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e Montana Workers' Compensation Act, s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA. W r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation e Court. C l a i m a n t i s a man i n h i s l a t e t h i r t i e s w i t h a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n and a y e a r of c o l l e g e . H e worked a s a l o g g e r i n t h e CETA program i n 1976, when h e was s t r u c k by a f a l l i n g tree and i n j u r e d h i s back. I n 1977 he was h i r e d by S t . R e g i s Paper Company i n Libby, a lumber company e n r o l l e d under P l a n I of t h e Workers' Compensation P l a n . I n 1978 he was o f f t h e job f o r s e v e r a l months b e c a u s e of back problems a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d by a n i n j u r y a t work which he b e l i e v e d m i g h t have a g g r a v a t e d t h e back i n j u r y he s u f f e r e d i n 1976. Defendant d e n i e d l i a b i l i t y and c l a i m a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i n September o f 1979. On August 5 , 1980, t h a t c o u r t d e n i e d c l a i m a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r f a i l u r e t o a f f o r d defendant proper notice. Claimant d i d n o t appeal. J u d i c i a l n o t i c e was t a k e n of t h e p r i o r c l a i m by t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t d u r i n g i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t claim. C l a i m a n t ' s back problems c a u s e d him t o m i s s s e v e r a l months of work d u r i n g s p r i n g and summer of 1978. H i s condition was d i a g n o s e d a s a " p r o t r u d i n g d i s c " and c l a i m a n t w a s g i v e n m e d i c a t i o n f o r p a i n and t o r e l a x h i s m u s c l e s . H e returned t o h i s work a s a lumber g r a d e r i n August of 1978, under a d o c t o r ' s o r d e r s t h a t he do no heavy l i f t i n g . A helper w a s a s s i g n e d t o do any heavy l i f t i n g which was n e c e s s a r y d u r i n g t h e month b e f o r e t h e r e s t r i c t i o n was suspended. Claimant s t a t e s t h a t h i s back h u r t him c o n s t a n t l y from t h e t i m e of t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y i n March of 1978, and he f r e q u e n t l y took valium t o c o n t r o l t h e pain. C l a i m a n t ' s job r e q u i r e d him t o t u r n o v e r p i e c e s of g r e e n lumber w i t h h i s l e f t hand, and g r a d e them, a s t h e y were conveyed a l o n g a w a i s t - h i g h t a b l e . The p i e c e s of lumber v a r i e d i n l e n g t h from e i g h t t o o v e r twenty f e e t and i n w e i g h t from s e v e r a l pounds t o w e l l o v e r one hundred pounds. O c c a s i o n a l l y t h e r e was a "jam-up," and c l a i m a n t was r e q u i r e d t o jump up o n t o t h e t a b l e and l i f t o u t t h e jammed boards. H e a l s o performed some c l e a n u p and maintenance work around h i s machine when t h e r e was t i m e . When p o s s i b l e , c l a i m a n t performed h i s l i f t i n g from a "duck-squat" p o s i t i o n t o p r o t e c t h i s back from p a i n and stress. On J u n e 28, 1979, c l a i m a n t was examined by D r . Bohlman of Libby f o r " a c u t e low back p a i n which [ c l a i m a n t ] s a i d came on w i t h o u t p r o v o c a t i o n . " ". . . Dr. Bohlman deposed t h a t c l a i m a n t s t a t e d t h a t he had had t h i s i n t h e p a s t s e v e r a l t i m e s , r a t h e r severely. . ." Dr. Bohlman t r e a t e d him w i t h valium and a d v i s e d c l a i m a n t t o u s e h e a t on h i s back and r e s t h i s back. C l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , n e a r t h e end of h i s s h i f t i n t h e e a r l y morning o f August 2 1 , 1979, he was t u r n i n g a heavy p i e c e o f lumber when he f e l t a sudden, s h a r p p a i n i n h i s back, s o s e v e r e t h a t i t immobilized him f o r t h r e e t o f i v e minutes. When t h e p a i n s u b s i d e d enough t h a t he c o u l d move, c l a i m a n t s a i d , he resumed h i s work f o r a n hour o r s o , w i t h a s l i t t l e a c t i v i t y a s p o s s i b l e , u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:00 A.M. He r e t u r n e d home w i t h o u t n o t i f y i n g a s u p e r v i s o r o f any a c c i d e n t , took valium and went t o bed. When t h e p a i n was s t i l l p r e s e n t i n t h e morning, c l a i m a n t a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t h i s foreman, Gary Hansen, t o l e t him know he would m i s s work t h a t day. When h e was u n a b l e t o c o n t a c t Hansen, c l a i m a n t c a l l e d J e r r y McKay, maintenance s u p e r v i s o r of t h e p l a n t , and t o l d McKay he had h u r t h i s back The f a c t s a r e d i s p u t e d a t and was going t o s e e a d o c t o r . t h i s point. C l a i m a n t c a n n o t r e c a l l m e n t i o n i n g a n on t h e job i n j u r y , and d o e s n o t r e c a l l McKay's a s k i n g him a b o u t an a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y a t work. McKay d e c l a r e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n : " I d i s t i n c t l y r e c a l l a s k i n g him i f he had a n a c c i d e n t a t work. H i s r e p l y was t h a t he d i d n ' t have a n a c c i d e n t a t work. I don' t know i f he s a i d h e d i d i t d o i n g something .. else. .. . ." McKay c o n t a c t e d c l a i m a n t ' s foreman, Gary Hansen, when Hansen came on s h i f t l a t e t h a t a f t e r n o o n . Hansen deposed t h a t McKay t o l d him a n a c c i d e n t r e p o r t would n o t be n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e " a p p a r e n t l y he d i d i t a t home a r e f r i g e r a t o r o r something." . . . moving something, Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n o t moved a r e f r i g e r a t o r , o r any o t h e r heavy o b j e c t , away from t h e job. C l a i m a n t saw D r . Dr. Bohlman i n Libby August 2 1 , 1979, and Bohlman immediately a d m i t t e d him t o S t . J o h n ' s L u t h e r a n H o s p i t a l i n Libby, where he s p e n t s i x d a y s i n t r a c t i o n w i t h o u t any s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. Dr. Bohlman's r e c o r d s do n o t mention whether c l a i m a n t ' s back i n j u r y o c c u r r e d a t work, n o r d o e s he remember t h a t t h e m a t t e r was d i s c u s s e d , a l t h o u g h he s t a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t i t was h i s " u s u a l p r a c t i c e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y i n q u i r e " a s t o t h e c a u s e of a p a t i e n t ' s m e d i c a l problems. The c l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he probably said his back was injured "that night," but he could not recall specifically stating that he had sustained an injury on the job. Claimant testified that at 4:15 P.M. August 21, 1979, just before going into the hospital, he called Gary Hansen and informed him he had hurt his back "that night" and was going to be hospitalized. Gary Hansen, in his deposition, denied that claimant contacted him; their only communication, according to him, occurred on August 30, 1979, when Hansen called to inquire after claimant's condition. At that time, no reference was made to the cause of claimant's injury. Gary Hansen's personal logbook, for the days following claimant's alleged injury, is marked with an "A," which Hansen said is the code for an accident suffered by an employee off the job. Claimant hitchhiked to Kalispell on August 27, 1979, and spent ten days in traction under the care of Dr. Ingham, again without significant relief of his discomfort. Dr. Ingham suggested that a myelogram and even a spinal fusion might be necessary; he referred claimant to Dr. Lynch in Spokane. Dr. Ingham's report indicated that claimant had back pain, went to work, and suffered increasing discomfort during his shift. The insurance report from the Kalispell Orthopedic Clinic, dated September 6, 1979, stated that the back injury was caused by a "sawmill accident" on August 21, 1979. Dr. Lynch in Spokane recommended a chairback brace, and, when that provided some relief, he recommended a lumbar fusion. His report stated that claimant's back injury occurred when claimant was working at St. Regis Paper Company. Surgery was performed by Dr. Shanks of Spokane on December 1 9 , 1979. Dr. Shanks' r e p o r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t s u s t a i n e d h i s i n j u r y w h i l e employed a s a machine o p e r a t o r a t S t . Regis Paper Company. Dr. Shanks s u g g e s t e d c l a i m a n t u n d e r t a k e a p o s t - s u r g i c a l t h e r a p y program t o b u i l d up t h e muscle s t r e n g t h i n h i s lower back and recommended t h a t c l a i m a n t n o t r e t u r n t o h i s p r e v i o u s employment u n t i l h i s back muscles were s t r o n g e r . Dr. Shanks deposed t h a t d u r i n g l a t e w i n t e r and s p r i n g of 1980, c l a i m a n t was " t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d " and t h a t , a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, h i s muscle s t r e n g t h had n o t improved t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he was r e a d y f o r working. H e f u r t h e r deposed t h a t , from a m e d i c a l s t a n d p o i n t , c l a i m a n t s h o u l d b e permanently r e s t r i c t e d -- he s h o u l d do no "heavy l i f t i n g , r e p e t i t i v e bending-type a c t i v i t i e s . " Dr. Shanks was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t c l a i m a n t ' s " d e g e n e r a t i v e disc disease." H e answered: " ' [ D l i s e a s e ' i t s e l f i s a misnomer. I t ' s more a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h r o n i c trauma o r a c u t e trauma w i t h r u p t u r e d d i s c s and sudden narrowing of t h e d i s c s p a c e o r a narrowing of t h e d i s c s p a c e s due t o d e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e d i s c due t o r e p e a t e d s m a l l trauma. [Tlrauma i s i n j u r y e i t h e r major o r minor o r r e p e t i t i v e - t y p e i n j u r i e s . " . . Dr. Shanks b e l i e v e d c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n was p r e s e n t p r i o r t o August, 1979. H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n t i n u a l bending and l i f t i n g done by c l a i m a n t i n h i s job a t S t . Regis Paper Company would c a u s e s t r e s s on t h e lower back, p a r t i c u l a r l y when c l a i m a n t l i f t e d b o a r d s t o c l e a r a jam. He s a i d t h a t s u c h s t r e s s c o u l d c a u s e d e g e n e r a t i o n of a n e x i s t i n g d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c c o n d i t i o n and c o u l d c a u s e s u d d e n l y i n c r e a s e d back p a i n . C l a i m a n t f i l l e d o u t a r e p o r t of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n j u r y on August 31, 1979; t h e r e p o r t was r e c e i v e d by S t . Regis P a p e r Company on September 6 , 1979, w e l l w i t h i n t h e 60 day n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA. On October 30, 1979, Ken S t a h l , p e r s o n n e l s p e c i a l i s t w i t h S t . Regis Paper Company, n o t i f i e d c l a i m a n t t h a t S t . Regis d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e l i a b i l i t y f o r h i s back problem and r e f u s e d l i a b i l i t y f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation Act. C l a i m a n t b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t on August 1 4 , 1980. The m a t t e r was h e a r d on October 8, 1980, and on F e b r u a r y 11, 1981, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment. A motion f o r r e h e a r i n g was d e n i e d and c l a i m a n t a p p e a l s t o t h i s C o u r t . C l a i m a n t r a i s e s o n l y one i s s u e : Whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a compensible i n j u r y a s d e f i n e d by t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA . I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment d a t e d F e b r u a r y 11, 1981, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t found: "There i s no m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e proposition t h a t the claimant suffered an i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of 39-71-119 MCA w h i l e i n t h e employ of S t . R e g i s Paper Company. "The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back p a i n p r e d a t e d h i s v i s i t t o D r . Bohlman and s u b s e q u e n t h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and was n o t a g g r a v a t e d by any e v e n t o c c u r r i n g on t h e job on t h a t d a t e . The c l a i m a n t a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t c o n s i d e r h i s p a i n t h a t day a s b e i n g a r e s u l t of an on t h e job i n c i d e n t , i n view of h i s d e n i a l t o M r . McKay and h i s f a i l u r e t o r e p o r t a n i n j u r y t o D r . Bohlman, D r . Ingham o r Gary Hansen. "At a l l t i m e s p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o t h e c l a i m a n t w a s knowledgeable i n t h e b a s i c f u n c t i o n i n g of t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation system w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e p o r t i n g of a c c i d e n t s and i n j u r i e s H e had been a shop o c c u r r i n g on t h e job. s t e w a r d f o r h i s union and had a t t e n d e d many s a f e t y m e e t i n g s a t which t h e s u b j e c t of t h e n e c e s s i t y of r e p o r t i n g a c c i d e n t s w a s d i s c u s s e d i n detail. H i s d e n i a l t o M r . McKay of t h e o c c u r r e n c e of a n a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y , c o u p l e d w i t h h i s f a i l u r e t o i n f o r m h i s p h y s i c i a n s and Gary Hansen of s u c h a n e v e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h p a s t m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e of low back p a i n b e i n g experienced seemingly w i t h o u t provocation a l l c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e t h a t no i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning o f 39-71-119 MCA o c c u r r e d i n t h i s case." The b u l k o f d e f e n d a n t ' s argument i s d e v o t e d t o d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o i m m e d i a t e l y n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s and p h y s i c i a n s t h a t h e was i n j u r e d i n a n a c c i d e n t on t h e j o b , t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t he d i d n o t s u f f e r from " a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g of a t r a u m a t i c nature. " Defendant a l s o t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t cannot c o n s i s t e n t l y a l l e g e both t h a t h i s i n j u r y developed g r a d u a l l y and t h a t i t was c a u s e d by a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h o s e f i n d i n g s on a p p e a l . L i t t l e v . S t r u c t u r a l Systems (1980) , P.2d 516, 518-519, B e c h t e l Power Co. 405-406, 36 S t . R e p . 37 S t . R e p . Mont. 1187, 1189. (1979), 1866, 1869. Mont. , 614 Stamatis v. , 601 P.2d 403, However, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n c l u d e d above, and t h e a r g u m e n t s o f d e f e n d a n t a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Montana c a s e law and t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s set f o r t h i n claimant's testimony-and i n depositions by c l a i m a n t ' s p h y s i c i a n s . Much e m p h a s i s i s p l a c e d upon c l a i m a n t ' s " f a i l u r e " t o n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s t h a t he had been i n j u r e d i n a n a c c i d e n t on t h e j o b . This f a i l u r e i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a n i n j u r y and i s t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s argument on a p p e a l . But t h e g r e a t p r e p o n d e r a n c e of e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t , w h e t h e r o r n o t c l a i m a n t b e l i e v e d h e s u f f e r e d a n i n j u r y on August 21, 1 9 7 9 , w h e t h e r o r n o t h e mentioned a n i n j u r y t o McKay and Hansen and D r s . Bohlman and Ingham, h e was and i s i n c a p a c i t a t e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e trauma-induced, progressive degeneration of d i s c s i n h i s b a c k , and t h a t c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d by t h e u n u s u a l s t r a i n o f h i s work. The n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t i n t h e Workers' Compensation Act, s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t no c l a i m s u c h a s t h e one a t b a r may b e c o n s i d e r e d compensable u n l e s s n o t i c e of t h e t i m e , p l a c e , and n a t u r e o f t h e i n c i d e n t i s communicated t o employer w i t h i n 60 d a y s . T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a n i n j u r e d employee n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s o f a n a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y w i t h i n h o u r s o r d a y s of i t s o c c u r r e n c e , however d e s i r a b l e s u c h n o t i f i c a t i o n may be. Claimant's notice t o d e f e n d a n t t h a t h e had s u f f e r e d a n o c c u p a t i o n a l i n j u r y was f i l l e d o u t by him on August 31, 1979, and r e c e i v e d by d e f e n d a n t on September 6 , 1979, less t h a n t h r e e weeks a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y and w e l l w i t h i n t h e t i m e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e . The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t t o s u p p o r t i t s argument t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a n i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y i s r e l e v a n t o n l y t o p r o v e t h a t f o r a few d a y s a f t e r h e l e f t work c l a i m a n t may n o t have b e l i e v e d h e had s u f f e r e d a n industrial injury. C l a i m a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y and h i s August 31, 1979, r e p o r t i n d i c a t e h i s c o n f u s i o n . Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s back had c a u s e d him c o n s t a n t p a i n f o r more t h a n a y e a r p r i o r t o August 21, 1979, and t h a t h e was accustomed t o t a k i n g v a l i u m t o c o n t r o l t h e p a i n s o h e c o u l d go on w o r k i n g . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t when h e completed h i s s h i f t , h e i n t e n d e d t o g o home, t a k e some more v a l i u m and go t o bed, a s h e had before. n o t new. The back p a i n , w h i l e more s e v e r e t h a n u s u a l , was On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , c l a i m a n t was a s k e d : Why, t h e n d i d n ' t you m e n t i o n i t t o somebody b e f o r e g o i n g home? "Q. "A. Because I w a s i n p a i n and c o u l d n ' t f i n d anybody I f i g u r e d i f I go home and t a k e some more valium I ' d be a l l r i g h t [I]£ I f e l t good and was t h e same way I was b e f o r e i t happened, t h e n I wouldn ' t need t o do anyt h i n g ; I ' d j u s t keep on." ... Dr. . . . Bohlman's r e p o r t and h i s d e p o s i t i o n s u p p o r t c l a i m a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e had s u f f e r e d back p a i n f o r some t i m e b e f o r e he s o u g h t D r . Bohlman's h e l p i n J u n e of 1979. evidence i s c o n s i s t e n t with D r . This Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n , which w a s u n c o n t r a d i c t e d by d e f e n d a n t , t h a t t h e l i f t i n g and bending done by c l a i m a n t a t work would s t r e s s h i s back and w a s l i k e l y t o c a u s e d e g e n e r a t i o n and a g g r a v a t i o n of a n e x i s t i n g condition. Furthermore, D r . Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e r e was no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n c l a i m a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s t h a t he had s u f f e r e d back p a i n f o r o v e r a y e a r , when h i s back s u d d e n l y gave o u t a s he l i f t e d a heavy p i e c e of lumber. Dr. Shanks s t a t e d t h a t " j u s t t h e l i f t i n g " would be enough t o c a u s e sudden a g g r a v a t i o n and suddenly i n c r e a s e d back p a i n . The m e d i c a l r e p o r t s and d e p o s i t i o n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p h y s i c i a n s who examined and t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t show beyond d o u b t t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y was r e a l . H e s u f f e r e d from a " p r o t r u d i n g d i s c " i n 1978, worked f o r o v e r a y e a r w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i s c o m f o r t , and, a f t e r August 21, 1979, was d i a g n o s e d a s having a " h e r n i a t e d d i s c " which r e q u i r e d s u r g i c a l fusion. He had n o t r e c o v e r e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he c o u l d resume work a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, and w i l l p r o b a b l y n e v e r be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o h i s o l d job, o r any o t h e r job r e q u i r i n g a s i m i l a r amount of l i f t i n g and bending. Defendant h a s n o t argued t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a h e r n i a t e d d i s c ; nor h a s d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d t o p r o v e t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s back c o n d i t i o n d i a g n o s e d i n 1978 was n o t a g g r a v a t e d by h i s work. Both d e f e n d a n t and t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t a p p e a r t o have i g n o r e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s work c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e h e r n i a t e d d i s c . O r d i n a r i l y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e Workers ' Compensation C o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y t o be g i v e n t e s t i m o n y . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h i s C o u r t d e f e r s t o t h e lower c o u r t ' s a s s e s s m e n t of t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. However, when t h e c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e , i s e n t e r e d by d e p o s i t i o n , w e have h e l d t h a t " t h i s C o u r t , a l t h o u g h s i t t i n g i n r e v i e w , i s i n a s good a p o s i t i o n a s t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t o judge t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t o such r e c o r d t e s t i m o n y , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o r a l t e s t i m o n y , where t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t u a l l y o b s e r v e s t h e c h a r a c t e r and demeanor of t h e w i t n e s s on t h e s t a n d . " 355, 359-360, H e r t v . J. J . Newberry Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 584 P.2d 656, 659. I t i s e v i d e n t t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t p a i d l i t t l e heed t o t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by c l a i m a n t ' s physicians, except t o determine t h a t D r . Bohlman and D r . Ingham had n o t n o t e d t h a t a n on t h e job i n j u r y had been s u s t a i n e d by c l a i m a n t on August 2 1 , 1979. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t q u o t e d above c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n r e p o r t s by Dr. Lynch and D r . Shanks t h a t t h e i n j u r y was s u f f e r e d by c l a i m a n t d u r i n g h i s work a t S t . Regis Paper Company. In f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 1 6 , t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t s t a t e d , "The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back p a i n p r e d a t e d h i s v i s i t t o D r . Bohlman and s u b s e q u e n t h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and was n o t a g g r a v a t e d by any e v e n t o c c u r r i n g on t h e job d a t e " (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) No. . on that That c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of law 2 s t a t e s , "The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a compensable i n j u r y a s d e f i n e d by 39-71-119 MCA, n o r a n a g g r a v a t i o n of a p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 w h i l e employed by t h e S t . Regis Paper Company." E v i d e n t l y , t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r Dr. Shanks ' d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s e r i e s of minor traumas c o u l d l e a d t o a c o n d i t i o n such a s t h a t s u f f e r e d by c l a i m a n t . Defendant d i s m i s s e s D r . Shanks' t e s t i m o n y as " e q u i v o c a l , " and t e n d i n g o n l y t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s work " ' c o u l d ' have been c a u s e d by a t r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e a l o n g w i t h o t h e r c a u s e s such a s d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c d i s e a s e . " Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n more c o n v i n c i n g . W e find Dr. In addition to h i s d e f i n i t e s t a t e m e n t q u o t e d above, t h a t d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c disease w a s not a disease, but a condition associated with a c u t e trauma, o r " r e p e a t e d s m a l l traumas, " D r . Shanks t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n had, t o t h e b e s t o f h i s knowledge, been p r e s e n t b e f o r e August 2 1 , 1979. A f t e r t h e t y p e of work done by c l a i m a n t was d e s c r i b e d t o D r . Shanks, t h e f o l l o w i n g d i a l o g u e took p l a c e : "Q. NOW, w i t h t h a t t y p e of a [ j o b ] d e s c r i p t i o n , do you f e e l t h a t t h e r e would be any k i n d of a g g r a v a t i o n ? T h e r e ' s p r o b a b l y g o i n g t o b e s t r e s s on t h e lower back w i t h h a n d l i n g t h a t k i n d of lumber. I t ' s d i f f i c u l t t o h a n d l e , and I t h i n k you do have t o s t r e s s your back even though i t ' s up h i g h and y o u ' r e n o t bending o v e r s o much. But j u s t j a c k i n g i t around i s h a r d t o do. "A. "Q. Okay. So, more t h a n l i k e l y , t h a t t y p e of a c t i v i t y would c a u s e some a g g r a v a t i o n of t h e lower back? "A. I would t h i n k i t would, y e s . " Counsel t h e n d e s c r i b e d t h e work r e q u i r e d t o f r e e a "jam-up," and a s k e d : "Q. Now, would t h a t t y p e of a c t i v i t y a l s o a g g r a v a t e h i s back? "A. T h a t would b e even more s o . . . . "Q. Even more s o . Okay Would a n i n d i v i d u a l w i t h t h i s t y p e of back c o n d i t i o n which you have d e s c r i b e d be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n j u r y t o h i s lower back t h a n a p e r s o n w i t h o u t t h i s t y p e of condition? "A. Yes. "Q. Now, would a p e r s o n w i t h t h i s t y p e o f c o n d i t i o n be s u s c e p t i b l e t o a sudden a g g r a v a t i o n of the condition? "A. W e l l , he c o u l d b e , depending on t h e t y p e of t h i n g he was d o i n g a t t h e t i m e . I f he, say, w a s up on t o p of t h e t a b l e t r y i n g t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t a 2 x 1 2 , o r whatever t h a t had g o t t e n t w i s t e d , and he b e n t o v e r and t r i e d t o p i c k t h a t up, he m i g h t suddenly g e t i n c r e a s e d back p a i n , yes. "Q. Okay. Now, going back t o m p r i o r example y of a d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s work, n o t on t o p of t h e t a b l e b u t i n h i s normal o p e r a t i n g p o s i t i o n , l i f t i n g a heavy b o a r d , would t h a t t y p e of t h i n g b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a sudden a g g r a v a t i o n of t h e back? "A. Could b e , y e s . ing. " Same t h i n g ; j u s t t h e l i f t - I n S t r a n d b e r g v . Reber Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 1 7 3 , 175-177, 587 P.2d 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t when i t i s proved medically p o s s i b l e t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n , t h a t proof i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a compensable d i s a b i l i t y . Similarly, i n Viets v . S w e e t g r a s s County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 337, 340, 583 P.2d 1070, 1072, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e t h a t an a c c i d e n t a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n i s more r e l i a b l e t h a n e v i d e n c e t h a t a n a c c i d e n t caused a d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n . In Hoehne v . G r a n i t e Lumber Company ( 1 9 8 0 ) , I 615 P.2d 863, 865, 37 St.Rep. Mont. 1307, 1310, a c a s e more n e a r l y on p o i n t , we h e l d t h a t " a t a n g i b l e happening" under s e c t i o n 39-71-119, . but MCA, c o u l d be " n o t a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t r a t h e r a c h a i n of a c c i d e n t s o r i n c i d e n t s , i . e . , the . . s t a c k i n g of lumber on a d a i l y b a s i s . " W c i t e d approvingly e E r h a r t v. G r e a t Western Sugar Company ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 380-381, 375, 546 P.2d 1055, 1058, which s a i d : "Not o n l y must c l a i m a n t show a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n , b u t t h e s t r a i n must r e s u l t from a t a n g i b l e happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e A tangible happening must be a p e r c e p t i b l e happening Some a c t i o n o r i n c i d e n t , o r c h a i n - a c t i o n s of o r i n c i d e n t s , must be shown which may - -r be p e -c e i v e d -s-a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e - -e r e s u l t a of t h ing - i n j u r y . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . .. . . . 7 The l i n e s i n Hoehne, s u p r a , w e r e c l e a r l y drawn. The s o l e d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t one p a r t y b e l i e v e d t h a t a g r a d u a l l y developing, job-related i n j u r y n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o one s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t was a n " i n j u r y , " and t h e o t h e r b e l i e v e d i t was not. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t was. The r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n from t h i s h o l d i n g i s t h a t , i f t h e r e i s s t r o n g enough e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e gradually developing i n j u r y i s job-related, it is an " i n j u r y " w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, and i s compensable, whether o r n o t c l a i m a n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t . I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t d i d n o t b e l i e v e c l a i m a n t when h e s a i d he s u f f e r e d a s p e c i f i c i n j u r y on August 2 1 , 1979. Evidently t h a t c o u r t d i d believe c l a i m a n t ' s s u p e r v i s o r s who deposed t h a t c l a i m a n t had d e n i e d t h e r e had been a n a c c i d e n t on t h a t d a t e . C l a i m a n t ' s d e n i a l of an accident i s n o t necessarily i n c o n s i s t e n t with our conclusion t h a t t h e c l e a r preponderance of e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a s e r i e s of s m a l l i n j u r i e s i n t h e y e a r b e f o r e h i s breakdown, which i n j u r i e s were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i s work; t h o s e i n j u r i e s a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t i n g back c o n d i t i o n and r e s u l t e d i n a herniated d i s c , t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , t h e subsequent s p i n a l f u s i o n , and a c u r r e n t l y d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n , t h e e x t e n t of which h a s n o t y e t been d e t e r m i n e d . W e a r e m i n d f u l t h a t i n Hoehne, s u p r a , t h e r e was no d i s p u t e a s t o t h e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y , whereas h e r e , e v i d e n c e h a s been p r e s e n t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d o f f t h e job, w h i l e he was moving a r e f r i g e r a t o r . Gary Hansen, t h e o n l y p e r s o n who mentioned c l a i m a n t ' s moving a r e f r i g e r a t o r a t t r i b u t e d t h e remark t o J e r r y McKay. McKay's d e p o s i t i o n makes no r e f e r e n c e t o c a u s a l f a c t o r s ; i n d e e d , McKay c o u l d n o t r e c a l l such a d i s c u s s i o n . Claimant himself t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had moved n e i t h e r a r e f r i g e r a t o r nor any o t h e r heavy o b j e c t . W do n o t f i n d Hansen's a l l e g a t i o n e r e l i a b l e ; i t i s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d h e a r s a y which, i f a n y t h i n g , i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by McKay. I t h a s l i t t l e f o r c e when c o n s i d e r e d a g a i n s t t h e f a r more c o n v i n c i n g and c o n s i s t e n t e x p l a n a t i o n p r e s e n t e d by c l a i m a n t and s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t e d by D r . and D r . Shanks' Bohlman's d e p o s i t i o n s . I n summary, t h o s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t q u o t e d above a r e d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d by a preponderance o f t h e e v i d e n c e . F i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , a s i n t h e c a s e of D i s t r i c t C o u r t s , may n o t s t a n d when t h e r e i s a c l e a r p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t such f i n d i n g s o r c o n c l u s i o n s when viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . H e r t v . J . J . Newberry Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 355, 359, 584 P.2d 656, 658-659. W r e v e r s e and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e Workers' compensation e C o u r t f o r f i n d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n , and f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e compensation t o which c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d . W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e A k 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
