WISE v PERKINS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-01 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 DORIS WISE, Claimant and Respondent, RUTH PERKINS, d/b/a HIDEAWAY, Employer, and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable Tim Reardon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: James P. Harrington, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, Montana 59711 Submitted on briefs: October 26, 1982 Filed: JAii L :..;;3 -- Decided: January 6, 1983 M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of Court. was Claimant awarded temporary disability total the benefits, 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 , m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , and a t t o r ney fees by a September Compensation C o u r t . Claimant, Hideaway, working 1981, judgment of the Workers' Employer now a p p e a l s . was employed b y Ruth P e r k i n s , D o r i s Wise, a bar-restaurant a t t h e Hideaway work r e q u i r e d week. 15, combination i n Anaconda. She b e g a n as a j a n i t r e s s . i n August 1976, to c l e a n t h e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s her d/b/a This seven days a and worked t w o to two and o n e - h a l f She b e g a n a t 6:00 a . m . h o u r s on week d a y s and f o u r t o f i v e h o u r s o n S a t u r d a y and S u n d a y . Her duties included mopping, sweeping and buffing the floors, c l e a n i n g t h e b a t h r o o m s , and dumping g a r b a g e . I n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 , c l a i m a n t b e g a n to b a r t e n d o n e e i g h t h o u r s h i f t on S u n d a y s i n a d d i t i o n t o h e r j a n i t o r i a l work. Then, in November 1 9 7 7 , s h e b e g a n b a r t e n d i n g Monday t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y and worked e i t h e r s i x or e i g h t h o u r s h i f t s e a c h n i g h t i n a d d i t i o n t o cleaning each day. This work pattern continued until her e m p l o y m e n t t e r m i n a t e d on A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 . On December 2 8 , 1 9 7 7 , e m p l o y e r ' s b r o t h e r and ex-husband k i l l e d in a plane crash. the Hideaway claimant. from This that were A 1 1 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n of to date drastically January altered the 12, 1978, work fell claimant on was r e q u i r e d to perform. D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , c l a i m a n t a r r i v e d a t t h e Hideaway a t 6:00 a.m. and c l e a n e d , s t o c k e d t h e coolers, opened t h e b a r a t 10 : 0 0 a.m., and b a r t e n d e d u n t i l l a t e a f t e r n o o n or e a r l y e v e n i n g . would t h e n be tend bar until relieved closing f o r a few h o u r s b e f o r e s h e r e t u r n e d at 2:00 a.m. Although claimant She to was g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d t o s i t on a s t o o l b e h i n d t h e bar d u r i n g s l a c k times a t w o r k , during s h e d i d n o t h a v e t h e t i m e to d o s o to a n y e x t e n t t h i s period. N e w Year's Eve was p a r t i c u l a r l y b u s y and c l a i m a n t was u n a b l e t o s i t down a t a l l . She s t a y e d a t work t h a t night 3;00 a.m. until returned in order f u l l e i g h t hour s h i f t tending spots 2, 1978, in her of to c l e a n and o p e n t h e b a r , a t 6 ~ 0 0a . m . January t o c l e a n up p a r t that legs. she the bar. first From t h a t d a t e and worked a was t h e n e x t d a y , It a noticed t h e mess, swelling forward, sore and she continued to n o t i c e s w e l l i n g and p a i n i n h e r l e g s and f e e t a f t e r s t a n d i n g o r walking. Between J a n u a r y 2 , 1 9 7 8 , and A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 , c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d t o c l e a n t h e p r e m i s e s d a i l y and to b a r t e n d s i x w e e k l y s h i f t s of s i x to e i g h t h o u r s e a c h . On A p r i l 28 e m p l o y e r f o u n d h e r a t work b a r e f o o t . H e r legs were s o s w o l l e n t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t g e t b o o t s o r s h o e s on them. Employer told claimant to go home to and have the condition treated. Claimant's was condition diagnosed as thrombophlebitis of both l e g s . She f i l e d a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n o f Workers Compensation. sel, was submitted depositions of to T h i s m a t t e r , b y s t i p u l a t i o n of coun- the claimant, Workerst employer, Richard B e s t i n l i e u of t r i a l . s u f f e r e d an MCA, Compensation Dr. J o h n A. Court Romito, on the and D r . The c o u r t found t h a t c l a i m a n t had i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) , and awarded h e r t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , p e r m a n e n t t o t a l disability, medical expenses, and costs and attorney fees. E m p l o y e r p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. injury 2. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s arose in Whether Compensation the course substantial Court and scope evidence finding that of her supports claimant is employment; the Worker's permanently, t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d ; and 3. W h e t h e r c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a n " i n j u r y " w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 3 9 - 7 1 - 1 1 9 ( 1 ) , MCA. 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 Workers C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t w h e r e 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 its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , CO. the (19791, - -- Mont . -- -- I .- -- S e e S t a m a t i s v. , B e c h t e l Power 6 0 1 P.2d 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 , 3 6 S t . R e p . 1 8 6 6 , 1 8 6 9 , and cases c i t e d Where f i n d i n g s are b a s e d therein. upon con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , o u r f u n c t i o n is t o de t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u c h a s w i l l c o n v i n c e r e a s o n a b l e men supports Mont . the findings .- . , Harmon v . 6 2 3 P.2d ( 1 9 8 1) , Deaconess H o s p i t a l 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 5 , 38 S t . R e p . -- - - - -. - 65, 68. Employer c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a finding t h a t claimant's o f h e r employment. p h l e b i t i s a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e and s c o p e She a r g u e s f i r s t t h a t c l a i m a n t r a r e l y worked a f o r t y - h o u r week d u r i n g t h e term o f h e r employment. a r g u e s t h a t while prolonged to the work development of required Finally, she Second, she s t a n d i n g i n one s p o t can c o n t r i b u t e phlebitis, could actually contends that be the walking helpful because rather claimant claimant's which than would harmful. sit i n one p o s i t i o n and sew on h e r o f f - d u t y h o u r s , t h a t a n a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e of i n j u r y o u t s i d e of presented. s u p p o r t s t h e Workers claimant December t h e s c o p e of employment is These arguments f a i l . The r e c o r d that t h e c o u r s e and 28, worked 1977, excessive Compensation Court f i n d i n g hours to J a n u a r y 1 2 , during 1978. the period also It from supports a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t t h e n c o n t i n u e d to work s i x s h i f t s of s i x to e i g h t h o u r s e a c h p e r week Claimant and employer i n a d d i t i o n to h e r c l e a n i n g d u t i e s . both tes t i £ i e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and w o r k l o a d to cla i m a n t l s increased from A u g u s t 1 9 7 6 u n t i l h e r t e r m i - n a t i o n on A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 . Both physicians testified that a number c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of p h l e b i t i s , s t a n d i n g , trauma, heart failure, cancer, of factors can including prolonged tumors, pregnancy, and blood d e f i c i e n c i e s . Based upon their employment h i s t o r y , medical examinations and claimant I s t h e d o c t o r s e a c h named t h e s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e d b y h e r work as a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r c a u s i n g t h e p h l e b i t i s . Dr. Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t b a s e d upon a r e a s o n a b l e d e g r e e of m e d i c a l certainty, phlebitis. claimant I s employment d u t i e s were the cause of her H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i f a n i n d i v i d u a l had a v a s c u - l a r c o n d i t i o n of phlebitis, "standing alone, c e r t a i n l y walking, b u t t h e s t a n d i n g a l o n e " would be e n o u g h to a g g r a v a t e and i n f a c t c a u s e t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r which he t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t . B e s t also Dr. t e s t i f i e d t h a t s t a n d i n g was a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n t h e d e v e l o p B o t h p h y s i c i a n s e l i m i n a t e d o t h e r f a c t o r s as ment of p h l e b i t i s . p o t e n t i a l c a u s e s o f t h e p h l e b i t i s , o n t h e b a s i s of t h e i r examinat i o n s and t h e m e d i c a l h i s t o r i e s t a k e n . Nor does claimant 's sewing. record phlebitis of phlebitis present. Dr. support could have unless time. been other contention caused by that sitting rejected and s i t t i n g as a contributing were factors R o m i t o w a s a s k e d i f it were p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e p h l e - was c a u s e d b y s i t t i n g bitis employer's employer's physician, Best, Dr. cause the still sewing for long periods of Even when a s k e d to d i s r e g a r d c l a i m a n t ' s H e a n s w e r e d "no." employment a c t i v i t i e s and t o c o n s i d e r t h e h o u r s of s i t t i n g s t i l l in isolation, he stated that i t would s i t t i n g t o cause such a problem. Compensation C o u r t ' s t h e Workers be v e r y u n u s u a l for the S u f f i c i e n t evidence supports finding t h a t claimant's injury was work r e l a t e d . E m p l o y e r n e x t c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e to support the conclusion disabled. upon able perform to the the doctors' work is permanently that claimant involved some walking. evidence totally Employer f o u n d s h e r testimony that extensive claimant is w i t h o u t m e r i t . T h i s argument argument ignores that presented that "might" be Employer demonstrates claimant's continuing d i s a b i l i t y . Romito testified Dr. ment of the t h a t a f t e r close o b s e r v a t i o n and t r e a t - condition f o r p r o v e m e n t , he a n t i c i p a t e d f i v e months w i t h o u t which t h a t c l a i m a n t m i g h t be a b l e t o work she " t r y a job stipulated walked, and rather see i f im- t h a t c l a i m a n t would c o n t i n u e to s u f f e r from p h l e b i t i s f o r t h e remainder of h e r l i f e . answered significant you than stood, can handle the While D r . Romito in a position answers reflected i t " attitude. t h a t s h e s h o u l d wear good custom-made He in a first support hose, that s h e work v e r y l i m i t e d h o u r s , or waitress suggest or bartender. recommend Romito a n s w e r e d , When that asked claimant "absolutely not," " a n y o c c u p a t i o n w h i c h would where c l a i m a n t would t h a t s h e n o t work d i r e c t l y whether as work a as a he would bartender, and e x t e n d e d require B e s t l i m i t e d h i s a p p r o v a l o f work, situation and Dr. t h a t a n s w e r to s t a n d i n g or w a l k i n g . " Dr. s u c h as s a l e s c l e r k w o r k , to a be w a l k i n g " [ I ] £ s h e h a s t o s t a n d a r o u n d and around. stated: He t a l k to p e o p l e and n o t move, she should avoid that." Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t she cannot be on h e r feet for any e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f t i m e and t h a t s h e m u s t e l e v a t e h e r l e g s or l i e down periodically s w e l l i n g and p a i n . during p e r i o d of must time. day to prevent the phlebitic S i n c e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r e m p l o y m e n t , s h e h a s had s e v e r a l e p i s o d e s of subsequently the now p h l e b i t i s a f t e r s i t t i n g and refrain from sitting for s e w i n g and any extended On a t l e a s t t h r e e o c c a s i o n s s h e h a s had b l o o d clots develop in h e r legs. When a c l o t d i s l o d g e d and t r a v e l e d to h e r l u n g s d u r i n g o n e o f t h e s e e p i s o d e s , c l a i m a n t was h o s p i t a l i z e d f o r severe chest pain. T h i s a t t a c k stemmed from t h e a c t i v i t y s h e e n g a g e d i n d u r i n g a move f r o m o n e h o u s e t o another. f l a r e - u p a f t e r t h e move r e s u l t e d i n o r d e r e d bed r e s t . A second B o t h phy- s i c i a n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by a p a t i e n t w i t h s u c h a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y from i n d i v i d u a l t o i n d i v i dual. Permanent total disability is defined in 39-71-116 ( 1 3 ) , MCA, as f o l l o w s : " ' P e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' means a cond i t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m 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 l o s s of a c t u a l e a r n i n g s or e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y 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 is a s 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 i 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 i n t h e wo;ker h a v i n g no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t o f f i n d i ng r e g u 1 r ei@ o a l a n i k x d- i n t L e n o r m a l --l a--o r -- --e t b - m a r k -~isabilitv shall su? ported by a preponderanceof medical evidence." (Emphasis added. ) . . be- I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , t h i s Court has s t a t e d : "We h o l d support t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o the finding of the Workers' section Compensation C o u r t t h a t c l a i m a n t is p e r m a n e n t l y and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d d e s p i t e t h e f a c t As t h a t h e c a n and h a s d o n e v a r i o u s odd j o b s . we have s a i d b e f o r e : .. "I. a man w i t h a s t i f f e n e d arm or damaged b a c k or b a d l y weakened e y e w i l l p r e s u m a b l y h a v e a h a r d e r t i m e d o i n g h i s work w e l l and m e e t i n g t h e c o m p e t i t i o n of young and h e a l t h y men. When a man s t a n d s b e f o r e t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t w i t h p r o v e n p e r m a n e n t phys i c a l i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy clause has abolished all possibility of common-law d a m a g e s , it is n o t j u s t i f i a b l e t o t e l l him h e h a s u n d e r g o n e no i m p a i r m e n t o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of c u r r e n t pay checks.' Fermo v. Superline P r o d u c t s ( 1 9 7 8 ) Mont. 574 P.2d 2 5 1 , 253, 3 5 S t . Rep. 2 2 . " B e c a u s e c l a i m a n t c a n p e r f o r m a few odd j o b s f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e does not p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t i s t o t a l l y and p e r manently disabled. T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t m u s t work w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e of pain." J e n s e n v. Zook B r o s . Construction CO. ( 1 9 7 8 ) r 1 7 8 Mont. 5 9 , 62-63, 582 P.2d 1191, 1193. Here, c l a i m a n t h a s b e e n i n s t r u c t e d t o n o t work as a b a r t e n d e r o r i n a n y o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e s t a n d i n g o r w a l k i n g . She c a n n o t s i t f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e w i t h o u t d e v e l o p i n g s w e l l i n g or She m u s t e l e v a t e h e r f e e t s e v e r a l times a d a y pain in her legs. t o p r e v e n t a f l a r e - u p o f h e r symptoms. advised Employer's p h y s i c i a n h a s a g a i n s t a n y o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would s i t t i n g f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . require standing or H e recommended s a l e s c l e r k work o n l y i f c l a i m a n t c o u l d move a r o u n d -- n o t if she has t o "stand . a r o u n d and t a l k t o p e o p l e " C l a i m a n t was termination. thirty-seven of age on t h e d a t e of her She m a r r i e d t w o m o n t h s a f t e r f i n i s h i n g h i g h s c h o o l a n d had f i v e c h i l d r e n . had p r i o r years The o n l y employment e x p e r i e n c e c l a i m a n t t o h e r employment a t t h e Hideaway was n i n e m o n t h s of w o r k a s a c l e r k a t a C i r c l e K s t o r e i n 1 9 7 3 , and a p p r o x i m a t e l y a y e a r and a h a l f o f work a s a c a s h i e r and h o t e l c l e r k f r o m f a l l 1974 t o s p r i n g 1976. She was e a r n i n g $ 2 . 2 5 p e r h o u r f o r c l e a n i n g a n d $ 4 . 2 5 p e r h o u r f o r b a r t e n d i n g a t t h e d a t e of h e r t e r m i n a t i o n . 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 o f employment. bilities have been severely restricted . Substantial H e r capa- evidence s u p p o r t s t h e h o l d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . E m p l o y e r ' s f i n a l a r g u m e n t is t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is n o t a n 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(1), MCA. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e of a t a n g i b l e , p e r c e p t i b l e happ e n i n g o f a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e and t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s would t h e r e f o r e be a n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e a n d s c o p e o f h e r employment. it a r o s e if i n the course W e reject t h i s argument. MCA, d e f i n e s i n j u r y as: S e c t i o n 39-71-119, " ( 1 ) A t a n g i b l e happening o f a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e f r o m a n u n e x p e c t e d c a u s e or u n u s u a l s t r a i n r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r e x t e r n a l or i n t e r n a l p h y s i c a l harm and s u c h p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n a s a r e s u l t t h e r e f r o m and e x c l u d i n g d i s e a s e n o t t r a c e a b l e t o i n j u r y , e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of t h i s s e c t i o n . " Two e l e m e n t s m u s t be d e m o n s t r a t e d : (1) a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g o f a t a n g i b l e n a t u r e ; a n d , ( 2 ) t h a t t h i s is t h e c a u s e of p h y s i c a l harm. Moen v. D e c k e r C o a l Co. 765, 767, 36 St.Rep. 2220, (1979), - 2222. Mont. --- - , 6 0 4 P.2d Employer contends that c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s g r a d u a l l y d e v e l o p e d and p r o g r e s s e d o v e r f o u r months. The T h a t is n o t t h e case. Workers' Compensation b e g i n n i n g o n December 28 Court concluded was a tangible 1977, t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n . " conclusion upon testimony that "the week h a p p e n i n g of a The c o u r t b a s e d t h i s establishing the excessive hours c l a i m a n t worked d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and it r e l i e d upon o u r h o l d i n g i n Hoehne v . G r a n i t e Lumber C o . 863, 8 6 5 , 37 S t . R e p . (1980), -- 1 3 0 7 , 1309-1310. Mont .- , 6 1 5 P.2d In - Hoehne, w e r e c o g n i z e d - t h a t a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g need n o t be a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t , b u t may v e r y w e l l There the be claimant a c h a i n of suffered from s y n d r o m e b r o u g h t o n by a c h a i n of incidents leading a bilateral to injury. carpel tunnel i n c i d e n t s as c l a i m a n t s t a c k e d t w o by f o u r s a t a l u m b e r y a r d e v e r y d a y . W e found t h a t t h e unu- s u a l s t r a i n i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s u n e x p e c t e d i n j u r y w a s c a u s e d by a tangible (1973) happening. 1 6 3 Mont. 234, See also, 241-242, Love 516 P.2d v. Ralph's Food Store 5 9 8 , 602-603; Robins v O g l e ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 7 Mont. 3 2 8 , 3 3 3 , 4 8 5 P.2d 6 9 2 , 694-695; J o n e s v. Cafes Bair's (1968), 152 Mont. 13, 19, 445 P.2d 923, 926. C l a i m a n t ' s e x c e s s i v e work s c h e d u l e d u r i n g t h e week b e g i n n i n g 1977, is December 28, resulted similarly i n an unusual the conclusion t h a t period rather strain. claimant's than over f i r s t noticed the pain a tangible Substantial evidence that supports p h l e b i t i s developed during f o u r months. and happening She testified s w e l l i n g on J a n u a r y 2 , that that 1978. she Dr. Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s a f f e c t i n g t h e s u p e r f i c i a l v e i n s s y s t e m can r e s u l t i n a narrowing of symptoms and no itself claimant 's Finally, had lead prior toward unrebutted history of t h e s y s t e m t h a t would c a u s e c l o t s w i t h i n a m a t t e r of d a y s . testimony phlebitis and established Drs. that Romito and she Best t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s is n o t a n e x p e c t e d r e s u l t o f work as a bartender. I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is a n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e r a t h e r t h a n an i n j u r y , employer must d e m o n s t r a t e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n j u r y and o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e crucial points distinction L a r s o n ' s Workmen's pectedness. p. of are time definiteness Compensation Law, . The t w o and unex- Section 41.31 Employer h a s f a i l e d to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e p h l e - 7-357-359. b i t i s d e v e l o p e d o v e r t i m e or t h a t it was e x p e c t e d . s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e Workers' The r e c o r d Compensation Court t h a t c l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) , MCA. Af f i r m e d . 4 , d f6 J-ustice / , d & , Chie (tCa Ye c o n c u r :

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.