ROBINSON v STATE FUND

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 91-540 IN THE SUPRERE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 ROBERT W. ROBINSON, claimant and Appellant, -vs- STATE OF MONTANA, Employer, and STATE COMPENSATION MUTUAL INSURANCE FUND, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy W. Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Lon J. Dale and Kristine L , Foot, Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Oliver H. Goe, Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry Helena, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: & Hoven, April 2 3 , 1992 July 10, 1 3 9 2 Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. Robert W. Robinson appeals from a judgment entered by the Workers'Coompensatior,Court which concluded that Robinson failed to prove his alieged head injury i s the result of a September 1986 work related injury. We affirm. Although several issues are submitted on appeal, we find only one necessary for our review: Whether substantial credible evidence supports the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that Robinson failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged head injury is the result of a work related fall. On September 16, 1986, Robinson fell outside the Sugar And Spice Day Care Center following a routine inspection as a deputy fire marshal. On tie following afternoon Robinson went to t n ie emergency room at Kalispell Regional Hospital. treated by Gregory Harrah, M.D. Robinson was Robinson reported he tripped and fell injuring his right ankle and left shoulder. On September 17, 1986, Robinson reported the accident to his employer, the Montana Department of Justice, Fire Marshal Bureau. He reported he fell at the day care center, spraining his ankle and injuring his back. Robinson was given until November I, 1986 to submit medical certification of his ability to return to work, for reasons unrelated Robinson was terminated from his position. Robinson received disability related to his back injury resulting from the fall from the State Compensation Mutual Insurance Fund (State Fund). Be filed an action with the Workers' 2 Compensation Court seeking a determination that the state Fund be ordered to pay benefits related to the alleged head injury he received during the fall at the day care center, including domiciliary care s e r v i c e s and attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that the State Fund was not liable far Robinson" alleged head injury. This appeal followed. Fwllowinc; R s b i n s o n s emergency room visit with Dr, Harrah, PLE has been seen by numerous doctors and psychologists, The Workers1 Compensation Court reviewed the testimony from the various physicians and psychologists as well as the testimony of family members, friends, and attorneys who worked with Robinson. Dr. Harrah, the emergency room physician, treated claimant far a shoulder strain and a right ankle sprain. Dr. Harrah reported no evidence of a head injury. Dr. Harrah opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Robinson was not suffering from a head injury at the time of his emergency room visit. On November 17, 1986, Robinson was treated by Dr. Jerome Wildgen for low back pain, left leg pain, and tenderness over the tailbone. Dr. Wildgen testified that he made no record of a head injury? nor did he recollect finding any symptoms of a head injury, or other indications of organic brain damage. Dr. Wildgen continued to see Robinson until September 8, 1987. The first indication in the records that Robinson reported a head injury was December 15, 1987 when he saw Dr. Gary Cooney. Robinson complained of headaches and reported he hit his head when he fell in September of 1986, Dr Cooney made no diagnosis of brain i n j u r y t o Robinson. Robinson m a i n t a i n s t h a t h e i n i t i a l l y r e p o r t e d a head i n j u r y t o h i s employer. written r e p o r t Robinson ~ i v i s i o ni n October of I n f a c t , a n a t t a c h m e n t to t h e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Workers7 Compenation 1966 states t h a t h i s ead, b a c k , and L e hurt a f t e r t h e f a l l . Robinson" t r e a t i n g physicians, Susan B e r t r a n d , a p & y s i a t r i s t . injury . Dr. Bertrand did w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of D r . d i d n o t make a d i a g n o s i s of a head not begin treating Robinson u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1989, two y e a r s and f i v e months a f t e r Robinson f e l l . Dr. Donald Nockleby, a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t , r e f e r r e d Robinson t o Dr. Bertrand f o r treatment of depression. t e s t i f i e d i n t h i s case. Dr. Nockleby h a s n o t Nockleby n o t e d i n h i s r e f e r r a l t h a t Robinson s u f f e r e d a head i n j u r y . found t h a t D r . Dr. The Workers' Compensation Court B e r t r a n d assumed from t h e b e g i n n i n g t h a t Robinson s u f f e r e d from a head i n j u r y . Dr. B e r t r a n d t r e a t e d Robinson f o r back p a i n and d e p r e s s i o n . S h e diagnosed Robinson w i t h d i f f u s e a x o n a l damage t o t h e b r a i n . s h e t e s t i f i e d t h i s t y p e o f damage c o u l d o c c u r a s a r e s u l t of a minor f a l l . Dr. Bestrand based h e r d i a g n o s i s upon r e p o r t s from p s y c h o l o g i s t s H e i d e r , T r o n t e l , Nockleby, Webber, and Robinson and h i s wife. These r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e t h a t Robinson h a s c o g n i t i v e problems. Dr. Bertrand testified that symptoms r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s a r i s e f a i r l y quickly; within t h i r t y - s i x hours. from head However, s h e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i f you a r e n o t l o o k i n g f o r a head i n j u r y , it would be e a s y t o m i s s t h e d i a g n o s i s . She s t a t e d t h a t tine problems with Robinson's tangential thinking would have been apparent back in November of 1986. Dr. Bertrand did not review the records of either Dr, Harrah or Dr. Wildgen. She noted that Dr. Cooney did not perfom. a mental status examination, Althcu h she did not perform one either, she states that Robinson had similar tests done prior to seeing her. Cliff Edwards, a Billings attorney; worked w i t h Robinson in 1985 and 1986 in a lawsuit arising out of a school fire. Edwards testified that after the accident he first saw Robinson in January or February 1987. couldn't keep a depressed. Robinson appeared to be a different man. train of thought and He appeared nervous and Dana Christensen, a Kalispell attorney, also worked with Robinson prior to his fall. Christensen did not see Robinson after his fall until early 1989. At that time Christensen described Robinson as being much smaller, very nervous, agitated, very forgetful and repetitive. Robinson seemed like an entirely different person than the robust, intelligent fire marshal he previously worlced with. However, Dan Hileman, a Kalispellattorney who represented one ofthe defendants in Robinson8s lawsuit against the day care center, testified that in November of 1987 Robinson appeared competent, and answered questions appropriately. Our standard of reviewing a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court is to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of that court. When there is substantial evidence to support the Workers8 Compensation Court, this Court cannot overturn the decision. Wood v. Consolidated Freightways (1991), 248 Mont. 26, 28, 808 P.2d 502, 504; Garcia v. State Fund (1391), Monte -, P,2d - 49 St.Rep. 440. When the findings are based on conflicting evidence, our function is to determine whether there is substantial evidence to sup such findings. Sshrapps v. Safeway Stores, I n c . : 1 9 8 9 ) , 238 Kont. not liable for the head injury claimant alleges to have suffered during the course and scope of his employment on September 16, 1986. Robinson must prove by a preponderance of the probative credible evidence that his head injury is the result of his September 1986 fall at the Sugar and Spice Day Care Center. Dumont v. Aetna Fire Underwriters (1979f, 183 Mont. 190, 598 P.2d 1099; Martin v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1987), 229 Mont. 529, 747 P.2d 1363. Further, "evidence demonstrating only a medical possibility does not mandate a conclusion that the claimant has met the burden." Schraa~sat 357, 777 P.2d at 888. Substantial evidence exists to support the Workers' Compensation Court's finding. As stated above, the physicians who examined Robinson after his fall did not diagnose a head injury. Dr. Susan Bertrand did diagnose a diffuse axonal damage to Robinson's brain. However, Dr. Bertrand's singular testimony that a fall of this type could result in injury to the brain does not "mandate a conclusion that the claimant has met his burden." Robinson relies on Harmon v. Harmon (1991), 249 Mont. 387, 816 P.2d 1032, to support his case. In Harmon we reversed the Workersc Compensation Court's finding that the claimant had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was permanently totally disabled. Dr. Lovitt, Harmon's treating physician, testified that Harmon" soandition was caused by a 1 9 7 3 a c c i a diagnosis after performing a special x - r a y examination. However, the Workersi Compensation Court relied on the testimony of Dr. Dr, Johnson testified t h a t he agreed w i t k D r . Johnson, Lob-itt s diagnosis, but stated he did not look into the cause of the condition. Harmon at 391, 816 P.2d at 1034. We stated that Dr. Johnson's testimony stating he did not relate the condition to a specific accident did not rise to substantial evidence to support the Workers' Compensation Court's conclusion that Harmon did not meet his burden of proof. Harmon at 392, 816 P.2d at 1035. In the case before us, Robinson's first three post-accident physicians did not diagnose Robinson with a head injury. Further medical tests performed on Robinson were negative for a head injury. Over two years post-accident, Dr. Bertrand, Robinson's physician, made a diagnosis of diffuse axonal injury. The Workers' Compensation Court relied on the testimony of Drs. Harrah, Wildgen, and Cooney, none of whom diagnosed Robinson with a head injury. We conclude that substantial credible evidence exists to support the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that Robinson failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged head injury is a result of a September 1986 work related fall. A£ firmed. Pursuant to Section 1, Farayraph 3 ( c ) , Montana Suprene Court 1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by i t s filing as a public document with the Clerk of chis C o u r t and by a report c f its result to the West Publishing Company. We Concur: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I iiereby certify that the fo!iowing order w s sent by United States mail. prepaid, to the following nzmx!: Kristine L. Foot Milodragovich, Dale & Dye P.O. Box 4947 Missoula, MT 59806-4947 Oliver H. Goe Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry 8 Hoven : P.O. Box 1697 Helena, MT 59624 ED SMITH CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA

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.