KEENE v ANACONDA COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-270 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 JACKIE KEENE, Claimant and Respondent, VS . THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Employer, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William Hunt, Judge presiding Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Utick & Grosfield, Helena, Montana Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Bernard Everett argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: 0K 13 1982 T September 14, 1982 October 13, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d Claimant-respondent petitioned the t h e O p i n i o n of Workers ' the Compensation C o u r t f o r p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s and a 20 p e r c e n t p e n a l t y f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e b e n e f i t s , i n J u l y , 1980. judgment for Anaconda the The Workers Compensation Court e n t e r e d c l a i m a n t on a l l i s s u e s . Company appeals the to p a y d e l a y and r e f u s a l Defendant-appellant, judgment of the Workers Compensation C o u r t . C l a i m a n t was employed w i t h t h e Anaconda Company a s a b o i l e r m a k e r a t t h e B e r k l e y P i t i n B u t t e , Montana. was claimant riding in a two and On A u g u s t 2 3 , 1 9 7 8 , one-half B e r k l e y P i t when t h e t r u c k c a u g h t f i r e . ton truck in the C l a i m a n t jumped o u t of t h e t r u c k w i t h a f i r e e x t i n g u i s h e r i n h i s hand and l a n d e d o n h i s C l a i m a n t i m m e d i a t e l y f e l t p a i n i n h i s lower b a c k and l e f t leg. l e f t leg. On A u g u s t 2 4 , 1 9 7 8 , c l a i m a n t went t o see D r . J a m e s P . Murphy, an orthopedic surgeon i n Butte, lower b a c k and l e g p a i n . Montana, asked f o r a second o p i n i o n . a neurosurgeon 1978. Dr. lower leg , his t o c o n s e n t to a myelogram and Murphy r e f e r r e d c l a i m a n t t o D r . Dr. who examined c l a i m a n t on S e p t e m b e r 1 3 , J o h n s o n found c l a i m a n t had s u f f e r e d a " l o w b a c k and muscular ligamentous" component" to c l a i m a n t s p a i n . and of Murphy recommended c l a i m a n t u n d e r g o Dr. a myelogram b u t c l a i m a n t r e f u s e d Johnson, f o r treatment claimant was treated chiropractor in Butte, injury Dr. Montana. found no "neural Murphy t h e n r e l e a s e d c l a i m a n t Dr. by but Dr. Phillip A. Blom, D.C., a Blom t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t from S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 8 , u n t i l November 3 , 1 9 7 8 , f o r a " l u m b a r s a c r a l strain with accompanying myofacitis and grade left." On November 3 , 1 9 7 8 , D r . B l o m r e l e a s e d c l a i m a n t to r e t u r n I1 radiculitis t o work. When claimant r e f e r r e d him t o D r . M i s s o u l a , Montana. continued to complain of pain, Dr. Blom David P . J a c o b s o n , a n o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n i n Dr. J a c o b s o n examined c l a i m a n t on November 7 , 1 9 7 8 , and recommended c l a i m a n t r e t u r n t o f u l l y a c t i v e employment. Claimant t o work returned as Company o n November 9 , 1 9 7 8 . a boilermaker with the Anaconda C l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d he had t o q u i t a f t e r w o r k i n g o n l y f o u r h o u r s b e c a u s e of p a i n . On November 1 0 , 1 9 7 8 , c l a i m a n t saw D r . Ladd D . R u t h e r f o r d , a n orthopedic surgeon, Rutherford on in Bozeman, Montana. Claimant two o c c a s i o n s a f t e r which D r . saw Rutherford Dr. advised c l a i m a n t t h a t h e would n o t d o a n y damage t o h i m s e l f by r e t u r n i n g to work but that he may have periodic back pain. Claimant r e t u r n e d t o work w i t h t h e Anaconda Company as a b o i l e r m a k e r on or a b o u t December 1, 1 9 7 8 . C l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d w o r k i n g u n t i l March 1 9 7 9 , when c l a i m a n t q u i t b e c a u s e of p a i n . On Works, quit April 19, Inc., i n Missoula, work 1979, a t Union claimant went Montana, Tank Works, to work f o r Union as a b o i l e r m a k e r . Inc., on Tank Claimant S e p t e m b e r 11, 1 9 7 9 . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , c l a i m a n t worked a t Weiss C o n s t r u c t i o n Company f o r a p e r i o d o f e i g h t d a y s and q u i t when t h e j o b w a s f i n i s h e d . 7, Construction, 1979, Inc. On O c t o b e r as c l a i m a n t began a working boilermaker. Claimant O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 7 9 , b e c a u s e of l o w b a c k p a i n . claimant returned to Dr. Blom for Refractory q u i t work on On O c t o b e r 3 0 , 1 9 7 9 , for treatment. Dr. Blom treated c l a i m a n t on f o u r o c c a s i o n s . On April Engineering 22, 1980, Company. claimant Claimant went was to fired work on for April because of a p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f i c t with h i s employer. 1 3 , 1979, c l a i m a n t w a s examined b y D r . Arnold G . o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n i n Missoula , Montana. " [ h ] is h i s t o r y , [claimant's] , back origin." pain Dr. and I 29, Peterson, that it an Peterson s t a t e d , a musculoskeletal s t r o n g l y doubt 1980, On December p h y s i c a l f i n d i n g s and x - r a y s a r e a l l f a i r l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of his Dr. Combustion has [sic] etiology for a neurogenic P e t e r s o n s u g g e s t e d c l a i m a n t s h o u l d s e e k work t h a t i s less l a b o r i n t e n s i v e . When c l a i m a n t s u b m i t t e d D r . P e t e r s o n ' s r e p o r t to t h e Anaconda Company's a d j u s t e r , it was r e q u e s t e d t h a t he be examined b y D r . John H. Avery, an orthopedic surgeon i n Great F a l l s , Montana. Dr. A v e r y s t a t e d c l a i m a n t had s u s t a i n e d a " s o f t t i s s u e i n j u r y to the lumbosacral 1978." of Avery a d v i s e d c l a i m a n t Dr. w h i c h would n o t lifting. as a r e s u l t spine his a c c i d e n t of f i n d work i n an occupation h i s b a c k or h e a v y i n v o l v e e x c e s s i v e bending of However, the Anaconda Company August, still refused to pay c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s t o c l a i m a n t or c l a i m a n t ' s m e d i c a l workers expenses. Claimant t e s t i f i e d or benefits medical expenses, due to Anaconda's claimant refusal exhausted all t o pay of his s a v i n g s w h i c h amounted to o v e r $ 1 5 , 0 0 0 and l o s t h i s home and t w o trucks. I n J u l y 1980, claimant petitioned t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t f o r p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s and a 20 p e r c e n t p e n a l t y f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e d e l a y and r e f u s a l benefits. C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t found c l a i m a n t is p e r - The Workers manently totally claimant's to pay disabled, ordered the Anaconda Company pay r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s and h e l d c l a i m a n t was e n t i t l e d t o a 20 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n award f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e delay and benefits. to refusal pay claimant permanent total disability D e f e n d a n t , Anaconda Company, a p p e a l s t h e r u l i n g o f t h e lower c o u r t . The i s s u e s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l are a s f o l l o w s : 1. claimant Whether lower the is p e r m a n e n t l y court erred t o t a l l y disabled in finding because that the could not support the he r e t u r n t o h i s f o r m e r o c c u p a t i o n as a b o i l e r m a k e r . 2. Whether lower c o u r t ' s former 3. there is substantial evidence to f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t could not engage i n h i s occupation as a boilermaker since August 23, 1978. W h e t h e r t h e l o w e r c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g c l a i m a n t t h e 20 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e d e l a y and r e f u s a l to p a y benef i t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-2907 The Anaconda Company , MCA. contends the lower court erred in f i n d i n g c l a i m a n t t o be p e r m a n e n t l y t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d b e c a u s e t h e court did not apply the s t a t u t e properly. The s t a t u t e d e f i n i n g permanent total d i s a b i l i t y is s e c t i o n 3 9 - 7 1 - 1 1 6 ( 1 3 ) , MCA, which states: " 'Permanent total disability means a cond i t i o n r e s u l t i n g from i n j u r y as d e f i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t r e s u l t s i n t h e loss o f a c t u a l earnings o r earning capacity t h a t e x i s t s a f t e r t h e i n j u r e d w o r k e r i s as f a r r e s t o r e d a s t h e p e r m a n e n t c h a r a c t e r of t h e i n j u r i e s w i l l p e r m i t and w h i c h r e s u l t s - -e in th w o r k e r -h a v i n g - -s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t o f f i n no r e a d i n g r e g u l a r employment o f a n y k i n d - t h e -h n o r m a l l a b o r - a r k e t . ~ i s a F i 1 - s m b<-s-upm ported by a preponderance of medical evidence. "- ( ~ m ~ h a s supplied. ) is - - The Anaconda Company a r g u e s h e r e t h e l o w e r c o u r t made no f i n d i n g that claimant had no reasonable prospect of finding regular employment o f a n y k i n d i n t h e n o r m a l l a b o r m a r k e t and t h u s was i n error. Instead, t h e lower c o u r t found c l a i m a n t " i s p e r m a n e n t l y totally disabled from engaging in his normal as a occupation boilermaker. " A l t h o u g h c l a i m a n t may n o t occupation a s a boilermaker, be able to engage i n h i s normal t h a t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean t h a t c l a i m a n t h a s a permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . The s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t h a v e no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t of f i n d i n g r e g u l a r employment of any kind in the normal l a b o r market (1968) i n t e n t i o n of 1 5 1 Mont. 7 6 , 438 P.2d t h e words used, s t a t u t e may be so d e t e r m i n e d , and if Trans. cites I n s . Co. Brurud v. from t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the t h e c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y a n y o t h e r means o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Claimant t h i s Court h e l d , " [ t l h e 660, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e m u s t f i r s t be d e t e r m i n e d p l a i n meaning of the I n Dunphy v . Anaconda c o u r t can f i n d permanent total d i s a b i l i t y . Co. before Judge ." Moving and Storage Co. & ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 2 4 9 , 5 6 3 P.2d 5 5 8 , w h e r e t h i s Court held: "The s t a t u t e d o e s r e q u i r e t h a t h e h a v e no reasonable prospect of finding regular employment i n t h e n o r m a l l a b o r m a r k e t ; b u t it d o e s n o t s e t o u t t h a t h e m u s t h a v e made a r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t to s e c u r e s u c h employment. I n some c a s e s , t h i s C o u r t c a n f o r e s e e t h e f u t i l i t y of such an e f f o r t . " 1 7 2 Mont. a t 2 5 3 , 563 P.2d a t 560. A s t h i s Court s t a t e d i n Brurud, s u p r a , i n some cases it would be futile for a employment. In a t t h e t i m e of the i n j u r y and had r e a c h e d s i x t y - t w o by t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g . He Brurud, claimant supra, c l a i m a n t was a g e f i f t y - e i g h t had been involved reports fused stated or t o e v e n a t t e m p t to f i n d i n h e a v y l a b o r a l l of claimant was greatly improved. c l a i m a n t was a g e t h i r t y - t w o been trained i n j u r y t o be However, in the present when t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d a mechanic as The m e d i c a l f o r h i s back too old his life. and welder prior case, and t o working had as a Here, t h e lower c o u r t made a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t boilermaker. c o u l d n o t r e t u r n t o h i s n o r m a l o c c u p a t i o n as a b o i l e r m a k e r . The lower c o u r t d i d n o t make a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t had no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t of f i n d i n g r e g u l a r employment of a n y k i n d i n t h e normal l a b o r market. T h u s , w e h o l d t h e lower c o u r t d i d n o t p r o - perly 39-71-116(13), apply section MCA, and we remand to the l o w e r c o u r t to make a f i n d i n g o f w h e t h e r c l a i m a n t h a s no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t of f i n d i n g r e g u l a r employment o f any k i n d i n the normal l a b o r market. The Anaconda Company n e x t a r g u e s t h e r e was n o t credible evidence to support the lower court's substantial finding that c l a i m a n t c o u l d n o t e n g a g e i n h i s f o r m e r o c c u p a t i o n as a b o i l e r maker. 580 P.2d I n S t e f f e s v. 9 3 L e a s i n g C o . , 450, t h i s Court stated: Inc. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 8 3 , " [w] e c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t as t o t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . Where t h e r e is 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 f i n d i n g s of t h e W o r k e r s 1 C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t , t h i s Court cannot overturn the decision." of the d o c t o r s who examined l i g h t e r work i f boilermaker. Here, t h e g e n e r a l c o n s e n s u s c l a i m a n t was that he should find he c o u l d n o t be c o m f o r t a b l e w h i l e w o r k i n g a s a This Court will not reverse the lower court's f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t c o u l d n o t r e t u r n t o work as a b o i l e r m a k e r , but again we note, t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n a l o n e does not s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . The n e x t i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g c l a i m a n t t h e 20 p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e f o r u n r e a s o n a b l e d e l a y and r e f u - s a l t o p a y b e n e f i t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-2907, This section MCA. states: "--- r e a s e - award -- u n r e a s o n a b l e d e l a y o r I n-c in for r e f u s a l - -- . to pay When payment of c o m p e n s a t i o n h a s b e e n u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d by a n i n s u r e r , e i t h e r p r i o r or s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n o r d e r by t h e w o r k e r s ' compens a t i o n judge g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t compensation b e n e f i t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s d u e a c l a i m a n t , b e t w e e n t h e t i m e comp e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s were d e l a y e d or r e f u s e d and t h e d a t e o f t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t comp e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , may be i n c r e a s e d by t h e w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n j u d g e by 2 0 % p ." From and after report, buttressed the receipt by b y t h e r e p o r t of Anaconda Dr. of Dr. Avery, Peterson's Anaconda should have e n t e r t a i n e d no doubt t h a t c l a i m a n t w a s d i s a b l e d , even though it questioned entitled to C l a i m a n t was t h e t o t a l e x t e n t of h i s d i s a b i l i t y . compensation payments when showed a d i s a b i l i t y . S e c t i o n 39-71-709, compensation to payments claimant s t a n c e s h e r e was u n r e a s o n a b l e , t i o n 39-71-2907, by the d o c t o r fs report R e f u s a l to make MCA. Anaconda in the circum- and t h e p e n a l t y p r o v i d e d i n sec- MCA, may be a p p l i e d by t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n j u d g e to w h a t e v e r amount o f d i s a b i l i t y is e v e n t u a l l y awarded t o c l a i m a n t . Claimant is likewise u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-611 , entitled to costs and attorney fees MCA. R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r f i n d i n g s and judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e herewith. (- - --' I - s t i c= Ju e % We concur: Justices - 7 - Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber specially concurring: I agree with the holding of the majority opinion remanding the cause to the Workers' Compensation Court to make a finding on the absence of a reasonable prospect of finding regular employment of any kind in the normal labor market; and also agree with the majority conclusion that we will not reverse the lower court's finding that claimant could not return to work as a boilermaker. I do not agree with the holding of the majority that the twenty percent penalty allowed in section 39-71-2907, MCA, necessarily should be applied. to me to be premature. This conclusion appears We are sending the case back for determination by the court as to the extent of the disability, and do not know whether it will turn out to be permanent or temporary, partial or full. Under those circumstances, I do not believe it is appropriate to suggest that the reports of Drs. Peterson and Avery are sufficient to warrant application of the maximum penalty at this time. That appears particularly true in the present case where we find a large number of qualified medical experts who concluded that claimant in fact did not have a disability and was free to go back to work as a boilermaker. Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority opinion that a finding by the Workers' Compensation Court that claimant was disabled from performing work as a boilermaker is not sufficient to support a finding of permanent total disability. However, there is substantial credible evidence in the record to uphold the finding of the Workers' Compensation Court that this claimant did suffer from a total disability. The majority correctly quotes section 39-71-116(13), MCA, which sets forth the definition of permanent total disability for workers' compensation purposes. That statute requires that claimant show he has no reasonable prospect of regular employment in the normal labor market. Evidence was provided by claimant at the hearing in this matter, that claimant was unable to hold any kind of regular job due to the pain experienced by claimant. Claimant's testimony is corroborated by testimony from a highly reputable board certified orthopedic surgeon, Arnold Peterson, showing that claimant suffered from a thirty-five percent disability. This evidence, when combined with evidence of claimant's lack of education and inability to qualify for employment other than that of a boilermaker, provides substantial credible evidence for a finding by the Workers' Compensation Court that this claimant was permanently totally disabled. It certainly would have been better for the Workers' Compensation Court to make a specific factual finding supporting the reason for its determination of permanent total disability. However, we can imply such a finding. In light of the fact that the Workers' Compensation Act is to be liberally construed in favor of the worker, I would imply such a finding in this situation because there is certainly evidence in the record to uphold the determination herein made. I concur h Justice Morrison's dissent. I
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.
