Hurlbut v. Vollstedt Kerr Company

No. 12929 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1975 HARRY L. HURLBUT.,', Plaintiff, -vs - VOLLSTEDT KERR COMPANY, Employer, and INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : F o r Appellant : Marra and Wenz, Great F a l l s , Montana Joseph R. Marra argued, and Charles R. Johnson argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Richard J. Conklin argued, White Sulphur S p r i n g s , Montana Submitted: May 8, 1975 m 8. 7z g 9 Decided :- 1 . F i l e d : ,IN 2 2 19B M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The D i v i s i o n of Workmen's Compensation of t h e Depart- ment of Labor and I n d u s t r y denied t h e claim of one Harry L. Hurlbut. Appeal was t a k e n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Meagher County which r e v e r s e d t h e ~ i v i s i o n s 'h o l d i n g and awarded Hurlbut $3,696, p l u s b e n e f i t s of $66 per week and medical c o s t s . This a p p e a l i s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment. Harry L. H u r l b u t , h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s c l a i m a n t , about 59 y e a r s o l d , had been employed by t h e lumber m i l l of t h e V o l l s t e d t Kerr Company, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Company, of White Sulphur S p r i n g s , Montana, f o r t e n y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e alleged accident. The l a s t e i g h t of t h o s e t e n y e a r s c l a i m a n t was employed a s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t . The Company p o l i c y was n o t t o o p e r a t e t h e m i l l when t h e temperature was t o o c o l d f o r t h e men and t h e machinery, u s u a l l y when t h e temperature was around - 5 O ~ a h r e n h e i t o r below. In the l a t t e r p a r t of December 1972, temperatures i n White Sulphur Springs 0 were a s low a s -30 F a h r e n h e i t and caused t h e m i l l t o be s h u t down f o r more t h a n a week. O t h e a f t e r n o o n of January 5 , 1973, t h e n t e m p e r a t u r e r o s e t o around -12' F. and Dick V o l l s t e d t , owner of t h e Company, o r d e r e d c l a i m a n t t o s t a r t up t h e m i l l t h e n e x t day. Claimant p r o t e s t e d t h a t i t was t o o c o l d and they should "play i t by e a r " . N e v e r t h e l e s s , V o l l s t e d t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e m i l l commence o p e r a t i o n t h e n e x t morning. Claimant began c o n t a c t i n g men t o r e p o r t f o r work t h e n e x t day; some by t e l e p h o n e and some p e r s o n a l l y . The n e x t morning, January 6 , 1973, c l a i m a n t a r r i v e d a t t h e m i l l o f f i c e a t about 6:20 a.m. and w a i t e d i n h i s o f f i c e f o r t e l e p h o n e c a l l s from %he employees t o determine how many men would r e p o r t . The 0 temperature i n t h e o f f i c e w a s 50 t o 55' F. and c l a i m a n t had h i s c o a t on. The o u t s i d e temperature was -6O F . , w i t h low wind v e l o c i t y . While s i t t i n g i n t h e o f f i c e c l a i m a n t became d i z z y , h e went o u r s i d e t o s e e i f a l i t t l e f r e s h a i r would h e l p , b u t then became nauseated. He went home and h i s w i f e drove him t o t h e h o s p i t a l where h i s d o c t o r diagnosed t h e problem a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , which simply means t h a t an a r e a of t h e h e a r t muscle d i e s by r e a s o n of t h e o c c u l s i o n of a h e a r t blood v e s s e l supplying t h a t a r e a . This d i a g n o s i s was s u b s e q e u n t l y confirmed by l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s . Z4r. Hurlbut made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r compensation f o r h i s myocardial i n f a r c t i o n (commonly termed a h e a r t a t t a c k ) , t o t h e ~ o r k m e n ' sCompensation D i v i s i o n . H i s c l a i m was denied and sub- s e q u e n t l y he p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i v i s i o n f o r a h e a r i n g . Hearing was h e l d wherein c l a i m a n t and h i s a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , A l b e r t V. J e l l e n , M.D., gave testimony. The h e a r i n g examiner denied t h e c l a i m on t h e grounds t h a t c l a i m a n t "did n o t i n f a c t s u f f e r an a c c i d e n t a l i n j u r y a r i s i n g o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment." Appeal was taken t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which e n t e r e d judgment f o r c l a i m a n t . Defendants V o l l s t e d t Kerr Company and I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity Company a p p e a l from t h a t judgment. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e workmen's Compensation ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r were supported by c r e d i b l e evidence and s u b s e q u e n t l y whether t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t was j u s t i f i e d i n r e f e r s i n g t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r a f t e r t a k i n g evidence? C l a i m a n t ' s argument a t t h e D i v i s i o n h e a r i n g and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g was t h a t t h e lumber m i l l had never b e f o r e been o p e r a t e d i n weather a s c o l d a s i t was t h e morning o f January 6 , 1973. There i s some c o n f l i c t i n r e g a r d t o t h e t e m p e r a t u r e t h a t morning, b u t t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h e temperature was between -SO and -10' Fahrenheit. Claimant m a i n t a i n s t h i s c o n d i t i o n con- s t i t u t e d an "unusual s t r a i n " because i t was a u n i q u e , new, d i f f - e r e n t and unusual demand placed upon c l a i m a n t by t h e Company. Any i n j u r y , t o be compensable under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act, must meet t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l requirements of the statute. S e c t i o n 92-418, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s i n j u r y a s II 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 from an unexpected c a u s e , o r unusual s t r a i n , r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r external o r i n t e r n a l physical harm, and such 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 therefrom 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 9~ * a*" Thus, t h e r e a r e two elements i n t h e s t a t u t e which must be met (1) t h e r e must be 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 , and (2) t h i s must be shown t o be t h e c a u s e of p h y s i c a l harm. Aside from t h e testimony t h a t i t was a few d e g r e e s c o l d e r t h a n normal s t a r t i n g temperature and t h e m i l l had n o t p r e v i o u s l y o p e r a t e d i n t e m p e r a t u r e s t h a t c o l d , t h e r e was no testimony t h i s imposed upon c l a i m a n t any d u t y which was unusual i n k i n d o r amount. The d u t i e s performed by c l a i m a n t on t h e day b e f o r e h i s a t t a c k and on t h e day of t h e a t t a c k , January 6 , 1973, were d u t i e s he had performed f o r t h e previous e i g h t years a s plant superintendent. Simply opening a m i l l on a day c o l d e r t h a n was customary, w i t h no i n o r d i n a t e kind o r amount I1 of work on h i s p a r t , cannot be s a i d t o c o n s t i t u t e a tangible happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e . " Claimant has f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of proof t h a t he was i n j u r e d , w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e s t a t u t e . F u r t h e r , t h e r e was no proof i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e myocardial i n f a r c t i o n had any c a u s a l connection t o c l a i m a n t ' s employment. C l a i m a n t ' s d o c t o r , D r . J e l l e n , t e s t i f i e d t h e r e a r e two p r i n c i p a l c a u s e s of myocardial i n f a r c t i o n : (1) a r t e r i o s c l e r o s i s , a g r a d u a l l y developing c o n d i t i o n t h a t h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h trauma, s t r a i n o r a n x i e t y ; and (2) when a blood c l o t which had p r e v i o u s l y and g r a d u a l l y formed somewhere i n s i d e t h e h e a r t b r e a k s l o o s e and occludes a h e a r t blood v e s s e l . There was considerable discussion regarding p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n c o t h e second cause, t h e blood c l o t , however, t h e d o c t o r t e s t i f i e d : "Q. Doctor, can you say w i t h any degree of medical c e r t a i n t y what was t h e cause of M r . ~ u r l b u t ' s myocardial i n f a r c t i o n ? A . No, I am a f r a i d I c o u l d n ' t . "Q. D you know whether o r n o t t h i s c o n d i t i o n o r e s u l t e d from e i t h e r a r t e r i o s c l e r o s i s o r a c l o t t i n g ? A. No, no, I wouldn't be a b l e t o t e l l , t o make any statement i n any of t h e s e d i r e c t i o n s because L don ' t know. I I Claimant f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden and t h e r e f o r e cannot q u a l i f y under t h e s t a t u t e f o r b e n e f i t s . Nicholson v. Roundup Coal Mining Co., 79 Mont. 358, 257 P. 270; Landeen v. Toole County Refining Co., 85 Mont. 41, 277 P. 615; Woin v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 99 Mont. 163, 43 P.2d 663; Ricks v. Teslow Consolidated, 162 Mont. 469, 512 P.2d 1304. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law of t h e Workmen's Compensation Division a r e presumed t o be c o r r e c t and i f supported by c r e d i b l e evidence must be affirmed. Section 92-822, R.C.M. 1947; B i r n i e v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39, This presumption can b e overcome however. Section 92-834, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t on an appeal from t h e D i v i s i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t has a u t h o r i t y t o determine "* Jc whether o r n o t t h e board r e g u l a r l y pursued i t s a u t h o r i t y , and whether o r n o t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e board ought t o b e s u s t a i n e d , and whether o r n o t such f i n d i n g s a r e reasonable under a l l t h e circum- s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . I t Section 92-834 a l s o provides t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may, upon good cause s h o ~ m ,admit a d d i t i o n a l evidence. S e c t i o n 92- 835, R.C.M. 1947 and Montana c a s e law holds t h a t i f t h i s a d d i - t i o n a l evidence i s s u b s t a n t i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may be j u s t i - f i e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e Division even though t h e evidence adduced b e f o r e t h e Division c l e a r l y preponderates i n favor of i t s o r d e r . Young v. L i b e r t y Nat. I n s . Co., 138 Mont. 458, 357 P.2d 886; 0 ' ~ e i . lv. I n d u s t r i a l Acc.Bd., 107 Mont. 176, 8 1 P.2d 688. This Court has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t where t h e a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s heard only on t h e D i v i s i o n ' s c e r t i f i e d r e c o r d o r when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t permits a d d i t i o n a l evidence t o be introduced and t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence i s n o t important o r adds n o t h i n g new t o t h e c a s e , then t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may n o t r e v e r s e t h e Division u n l e s s t h e evidence c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Division. S t o r d a h l v. Rush Imple- ment Co., 148 Mont. 13, 417 P.2d 95; Jones v. air's Cafes, 132 Mont. 13, 445 P.2d 923; McAndrews v. Schwartz, 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379, 31 St.Rep. 517; B e a t t y v. Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . , Mon t . Y P.2d , 32 St.Rep. 680. Here, t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence admitted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t shed no new l i g h t on t h e circumstances surrounding t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t a s t o t h e cause of t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y . With t h e exception of testimony r e l a t i n g t o t h e degree of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y , which was n o t an i s s u e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e a d d i t i o n a l testimony a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was merely r e p e t i t i v e of t h a t admitted a t t h e Division hearing. Such redundant testimony can It i n no way be s a i d t o c l e a r l y preponderate a g a i n s t t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s findings .II The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e o r d e r o f t h e Workmen's Compensation Division i s a f f i r m e d and reinstated. &-/[-- Justice W Concur: e ." ", Chief J u s t i c e