Rumsey v. Cardinal Petroleum

No. 12699

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN

CECIL

Claimant and Respondent,

CARDINAL PETROLEUM, Employer and
GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondent and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record :

For Appellant :

Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and G a l l a g h e r ,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Bruce R. Toole, argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondent:

Michael J. Whalen argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: November 13, 1974

Decided: JAN g w5
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,

Yellowstone County, which r e v e r s e d a n o r d e r of t h e Workmen's

Compensation D i v i s i o n and h e l d i n f a v o r o f t h e c l a i m a n t , C e c i l J .

Rumsey .
On J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1970, C e c i l Rumsey, a n employee of C a r -

d i n a l P e t r o l e u m Company, s u f f e r e d a n i n j u r y w h i l e working a s a

"roughneck" on a n o i l w e l l . The a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d when a d r i l l e r

s t a r t e d a winch w h i l e c l a i m a n t w a s a t t e m p t i n g t o c o n n e c t a s e t

of t o n g s t o t h e d r i l l stem of a n o i l w e l l . Claimant was j e r k e d

a c r o s s t h e p l a t f o r m o f t h e o i l r i g and s u s t a i n e d i n j u r i e s t o

h i s r i g h t a r m , s h o u l d e r and c h e s t . C l a i m a n t ' s h o s p i t a l and s u r g e r y

c o s t s i n t h e amount of $6,413.70 were p a i d by a p p e l l a n t . Weekly

compensation b e n e f i t s were p a i d from J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1970 t h r o u g h

F e b r u a r y 4 , 1970 and from F e b r u a r y 2 , 1971 t h r o u g h October 1 4 ,

1971, f o r a t o t a l of 39-1/7 weeks, i n t h e amount of $1,695.71.

A f t e r a s h o r t p e r i o d of r e c u p e r a t i o n , c l a i m a n t q u i t h i s

j o b a t C a r d i n a l P e t r o l e u m Company and went t o Wyoming where h e

worked a s a p l a s t e r e r . During t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e , h e complained

of a n e x t e n s i v e a c h e i n h i s r i g h t s i d e and a r m , a l o n g w i t h c h i l l s

and f e v e r . H e a l s o found i t d i f f i c u l t t o b r e a t h e and e x p e r i e n c e d

a s h a r p p a i n i n h i s c h e s t when he o v e r e x e r t e d h i m s e l f .
On October 7 , 1970, c l a i m a n t w a s a d m i t t e d t o t h e i n t e n s i v e

c a r e u n i t of a Wyoming h o s p i t a l a f t e r h a v i n g s u f f e r e d s e v e r e

chest pains. C l a i m a n t ' s i l l n e s s was d i a g n o s e d a s m y o c a r d i a l

i s c h e m i a , a c o n d i t i o n t h a t h a s c a u s e d c l a i m a n t t o become permanent-

l y disabled.

Ischemia i s a c o n d i t i o n where t h e r e i s a n o b s t r u c t i o n

o f t h e blood f l o w t h r o u g h t h e c o r o n a r y a r t e r i e s r e s u l t i n g i n t h e

l a c k of an a d e q u a t e blood s u p p l y t o t h e h e a r t muscle. If the

condition i s extensive, angina p e c t o r i s o r an oppressive pain
under t h e b r e a s t b o n e r e s u l t s .

On March 1 9 , 1971, c l a i m a n t underwent s u r g e r y t o r e s t o r e

t h e c a p a c i t y of h i s r i g h t l u n g which had become s e v e r e l y compro-
mised a s a r e s u l t of t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . The m e d i c a l t e s t -

imony p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n d i s c l o s e d

t h a t t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t had c a u s e d t h e c l a i m a n t t o s u f f e r

i n t e r n a l b l e e d i n g which had c a u s e d h i s r i g h t c h e s t c a v i t y t o be-

come f i l l e d w i t h b l o o d . The blood e v e n t u a l l y formed a r e s t r i c -

t i v e c a s i n g around t h e r i g h t l u n g and p r e v e n t e d i t from f u n c t i o n -
ing properly. The o p e r a t i o n removed t h i s t h i c k c a s i n g of blood

o r p l e u r a and t h e r i g h t l u n g w a s expanded.

O September 29, 1971, c l a i m a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workmen's
n

Compensation D i v i s i o n t o be d e c l a r e d permanently d i s a b l e d and
t o be awarded a lump-sum s e t t l e m e n t .

The c r u c i a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Workmen's Compensa-

t i o n D i v i s i o n was whether t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t c o u p l e d w i t h

t h e compromised r i g h t l u n g and t h e r e s u l t a n t p h y s i c a l and emo-
t i o n a l stress, had a c c e l e r a t e d o r a g g r a v a t e d t h e c l a i m a n t ' s

p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n of myocardial i s c h e m i a .

During t h e h e a r i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n s of two p h y s i c i a n s ,

Doctor Movius and Doctor R o u s s a l i s were i n t r o d u c e d .

Doctor Movius t e s t i f i e d :

"Q. Now, b a c k i n g up a l i t t l e , and h a v i n g i n mind
t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h i s l u n g d u r i n g t h e 1 4 months be-
f o r e s u r g e r y , would t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d t h e r e
d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d of t i m e impose any l i m i t a t i o n
upon t h e oxygen s u p p l y t h a t would be f u r n i s h e d t o
t h e h e a r t ? A. Y e s , s i r .
"Q. And what would be t h e n a t u r e of t h a t l i m i t a t i o n ?
A. W e l l , a s I mentioned e a r l i e r , i t would be my
o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p a t i e n t would a c t u a l l y be f u n c t i o n -
i n g w i t h less t h a n one l u n g inasmuch a s t h e r i g h t
o n e w a s c o m p l e t e l y c o n s t r i c t e d and v e r y p r o b a b l y
pushed somewhat t o t h e l e f t and l i m i t i n g t h e f u n c t i o n
of t h e uninjured lung, so t h a t s o f a r a s t h e t o t a l
o x y g e n a t i o n i s concerned under s t r e s s , he p r o b a b l y
had less t h a n 5 0 % o x y g e n a t i o n t o h i s body t h a n was
p o s s i b l e under maximum c o n d i t i o n s b e f o r e t h e i n j u r y .
 "Q. And d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f t i m e when he was
a t t e m p t i n g t o work he was under s t r e s s , i s t h a t
c o r r e c t ? A. I d o n ' t t h i n k t h e r e i s any d o u b t a b o u t
it.

"Q. And w i t h t h a t l i m i t a t i o n and s t r e s s , would t h a t
p u t any s t r e s s upon o t h e r v i t a l o r g a n s of t h e body?
A. I think so.

"Q. And which one? A. Primarily the heart.

"Q. Now, c o u l d you t e l l u s , p l e a s e , whether o r n o t
a f t e r t h e performance of t h i s s u r g e r y t h e r e would
now be any l i m i t a t i o n of t h e oxygen s u p p l y t o t h e
h e a r t b e c a u s e of t h i s c o n d i t i o n , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d
from what i t would have been p r i o r t o t h e t i m e of
i n j u r y ? A . Yes, t h e r e i s some l i m i t a t i o n , b u t n o t
n e a r l y s o g r e a t a s b e f o r e . According t o t h e t e s t s ,
we f i n d t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a v e r a g e i n d i v i d u a l ,
h e h a s 8 5 % a s much a s a normal i n d i v i d u a l s i n c e t h e
o p e r a t i o n . But p r i o r t o t h e o p e r a t i o n , I would
e s t i m a t e t h a t it w a s somewhere i n t h e r e g i o n of
40 t o 45%.

"Q. And what would c a u s e t h e c o n t i n u e d l i m i t a t i o n
of oxygen t o t h e h e a r t a f t e r t h e s u r g e r y h a s been
completed, t h e h e a l i n g p e r i o d p a s t ? A. Well, I
t h i n k t h a t any stress phenomenon t h a t any i n d i v i d u a l
endures--and a t t h i s p e r i o d of l i f e we a l l know t h a t
t h e r e i s a narrowing of your blood v e s s e l s and many
p e o p l e d o n ' t l i v e t o be a t t h e a g e of many of u s
a r e . And i f I may go i n t o h i s h i s t o r y , t h e f a c t t h a t
he had a c o r o n a r y problem i n October of 1970, I
t h i n k t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t he
worked f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y n i n e months w i t h l e s s t h a n
one l u n g g r e a t l y a g g r a v a t e d h i s p r o b a b l e p r e s e n t
e x i s t i n g c o r o n a r y narrowing and was l a r g e l y r e s p o n -
s i b l e f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e of h i s c o r o n a r y a t t h a t t i m e
b e c a u s e of t h e c o n t i n u e d v i g o r o u s work which he d i d
w i t h a markedly compromised-oxygen s u p p l y . "

Doctor R o u s s a l i s testified:
"Q. Then, D o c t o r , you e x p l a i n e d i n your o p i n i o n ,
your w r i t t e n o p i n i o n which i s now a t t a c h e d t o Doctor
Movius' d e p o s i t i o n , and I w i l l q u o t e , 'EKG r e v e a l e d
t h e p a t i e n t t o have m y o c a r d i a l i s c h e m i a which i s
n o t r e l a t e d t o t h i s i n j u r y and which w i l l be of
permanent n a t u r e ' . I w i l l j u s t s i m p l y a s you ( s i c ) ,
a r e you s t i l l of t h a t o p i n i o n , and t h a t i s , t h e
i s c h e m i a i s n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e i n j u r y which h a s
been d e s c r i b e d i n your h i s t o r y and f o r which t h i s
c l a i m i s made? A. That i s c o r r e c t .
"Q. And i t i s y o u r o p i n i o n , t h e n , i f I u n d e r s t a n d
you, t h i s i s a d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i s e a s e of a g i n g of
o u r s o c i e t y ? A. Correct."
When t h e h e a r i n g s examiner was c o n f r o n t e d w i t h t h e con-

f l i c t i n g m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y , he d e c i d e d t o send p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n s
of t h e f i l e t o an i n d e p e n d e n t p h y s i c i a n , Doctor Goulding, f o r
h i s opinion. Doctor G o u l d i n g ' s two page r e p o r t w a s s e n t by t h e

h e a r i n g s examiner t o r e s p e c t i v e c o u n s e l a l o n g w i t h a l e t t e r

s t a t i n g t h e r e p o r t would be u t i l i z e d i n r e a c h i n g a d e c i s i o n .

Doctor G o u l d i n g ' s r e p o r t s t a t e d , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t l u n g d i s e a s e
and e m o t i o n a l trauma were n o t f a c t o r s i n a c c e l e r a t i n g m y c a r d i a l

ischemia.

Upon r e c e i p t of t h i s r e p o r t , c l a i m a n t ' s c o u n s e l w r o t e t o

t h e h e a r i n g s examiner o b j e c t i n g t o t h e u s e of e v i d e n c e o u t s i d e

of t h e r e c o r d and r e q u e s t i n g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o cross-examine

Doctor Goulding and t o o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y t o
rebut h i s findings.

On October 30, 1972, t h e h e a r i n g s examiner d e n i e d corn-

p e n s a t i o n t o c l a i m a n t w i t h o u t a f f o r d i n g him t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o

cross-examine Doctor Goulding and t o r e b u t h i s f i n d i n g s .
Thereupon, c l a i m a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which

h e a r d a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y from Doctor Movius and r e v e r s e d t h e
f i n d i n g s of t h e D i v i s i o n . The employer and i t s i n s u r a n c e company

appealed.
The i s s u e s a r e :

1. Did t h e D i v i s i o n e r r i n d e n y i n g c l a i m a n t a n oppor-

t u n i t y t o cross-examine Doctor Goulding and t o r e b u t h i s f i n d i n g s ?
2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n r e v e r s i n g t h e f i n d i n g s

of t h e D i v i s i o n ?
I s s u e 1. W n o t e t h e r u l e s of e v i d e n c e a r e more r e l a x e d
e

i n a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g t h a n i n a c o u r t of law. Section

92-812, R.C.M. 1947; Ross v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board, 106 Mont.
486, 80 P.2d 362; Bergan v. G a l l a t i n V a l l e y Mlg. Co., 138 Mont.
27, 353 P.2d 320. However, t h e s e r u l e s w i l l n o t be r e l a x e d t o t h e
p o i n t where due p r o c e s s of law and t h e fundamental r i g h t s o f t h e

i n j u r e d workmen a r e d i s r e g a r d e d .
 In Mulholland v. Butte & Superior Min. Co., 87 Mont.
561, 289 P. 574, two referee physicians were selected by the
Industrial Accident Board to render an opinion after the board
was unable to reach a decision because of conflicting medical
testimony. A written report favoring the claimant was submitted.
Accordingly, the board found the claimant was totally disabled
and awarded him compensation. Thereupon, the defendant company
perfected an appeal to the district court which upheld the
decision of the board after additional evidence was heard. This
Court conceded the board had erred in depriving defendants of
their right to cross-examine the physicians. However, the dis-
trict court was not held in error because it was presumed that
it had considered only competent testimony and had ignored the
reports.
3 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, B 79.63, states:
"Under the increasingly common practice of referral
of claimant to an official medical examiner or an
independent physician chosen by the commission, it
is particularly important that commissions not lose
sight of the elementary requirement that the parties
be given an opportunity to see such a doctor's
report, cross-examine him, and if necessary provide
rebuttal testimony."
In Massachusetts Bond. & Ins. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com'n,
74 C.A.2d 911, 170 P.2d 36,37, the California Industrial Accident
Commission referred a case to two independent physicians because
of conflicting medical testimony. Upon appeal, the petitioner
contended he had been denied due process of law when his request
for an opportunity to cross-examine the physicians and to produce
rebuttal testimony had been denied. The court agreed with his
contention and stated:
" * * * Even if regarded as a purely adminis-
trative agency, however, in exercising adjudi-
catory functions the commission is bound by
the due process clause of the fourteenth amend-
ment to the United States Constitution to give
the parties before it a fair and open hearing.
 'The right to such a hearing is one of
"the rudiments of fair play" (citation)
assured to every litigant by the Fourteenth
Amendment as a minimal requirement.' [Cases
cited].
"The reasonable opportunity to meet and rebut
the evidence produced by his opponent is
generally recognized as one of the essentials
of these minimal requirements [Cases cited] and
the right of cross-examination has frequently
been referred to as another [Cases cited]."
For similar holdings see: Beeler v. Central Foundry Division,
32 Mich.App. 661, 189 N.W.2d 64; Hegglin v. Workmen's Compensa-
tion Appeals Board, 93 Cal.Rptr. 15, 480 P.2d 967; Chavez v.
Industrial Commission, 5 Ariz.App. 294, 425 P.2d 864; North West
Trailer Sales v. McCann, (Fla. 1968) 217 So.2d 310; Armes v.
Pierce Governor Co., 121 1nd.App. 566, 101 N.E.2d 199; Puncec v.
City and County of Denver, 28 Col.App. 542, 475 P.2d 359; Annota-
tion, 109 ALR 598.
The Division erred in basing its decision upon an inde-
pendent medical report made by a physician appointed by the Divi-
sion, accompanied by denial of the right to cross-examine and
rebut.
Issue 2. Section 92-834, R.C.M. 1947, provides the dis-
trict court may consider additional evidence that was not before
the Division. If this additional evidence is substantial, the
district court may reverse the division even though the evidence
before the Division preponderates in favor of the Division. Young
v. Liberty Nat. Ins. Co., 138 Mont. 458, 357 P.2d 886; OINeil v.
Industrial Accident Board, 107 Mont. 176, 81 P.2d 688; wee die
v. Industrial Accident Board, 101 Mont. 256, 53 P.2d 1145. Further-
more, every presumption is in favor of the correctness of the
district court's decision when additional evidence has been pre-
sented. Murphy v. Industrial Accident Board, 93 Mont. 1, 16 P.2d
705; O'Neil, supra; Mulholland, supra. With these principles in
mind, we review the additional evidence presented.
 Doctor Movius t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e l a c k of s i g n i f i c a n c e
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e f a c t t h a t c l a i m a n t had no enzyme change

i n s o f a r a s h i s d i a g n o s i s was c o n c e r n e d . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d

c l a i m a n t was n o t s u f f e r i n g from c h r o n i c l u n g d i s e a s e , a f a c t o r

r e l i e d upon by Doctor Goulding. A t t h e t i m e t h i s m a t t e r came

before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , counsel f o r a p p e l l a n t s i n d i c a t e d t o

the court:

"MR. TOOLE: * * * But I would l i k e t o i n d i c a t e
a t t h i s t i m e t h a t I may have a r e b u t t a l w i t n e s s
who i s n o t h e r e and t h a t would be D r . Goulding
who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g e a r l i e r a s
a c o n s u l t a n t t o t h e I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board,
and I t o l d M r . Whalen t h a t I would t r y t o have
him h e r e t h i s morning and t o be h o n e s t a b o u t i t
I f o r g o t t o c a l l D r . Goulding and I am n o t r e a l l y
s u r e t h a t I am g o i n g t o need him i n any c a s e , s o
p e r h a p s i t ' s j u s t a s w e l l n o t t o have him s i t t i n g
h e r e . Now w i t h t h a t r e s e r v a t i o n and w i t h t h e
r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t I may make a r e q u e s t l a t e r , i f
n e c e s s a r y , t o g e t some e v i d e n c e from D r . Gould-
i n g , we a r e r e a d y .

"THE COURT: Thank you. M r . Whalen?

"MR. WHALEN: For t h e r e c o r d , Your Honor, and
w h i l e I have i t i n mind i t i s n o t m purpose t o y
l i m i t t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e C o u r t , b u t when I
t a l k e d t o M r . Toole on May 11, 1973 I t o l d him
a t t h a t t i m e I i n t e n d e d t o c a l l D r . Movius f o r
a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y and i f o t h e r m e d i c a l w i t n e s s e s
were g o i n g t o be c a l l e d it was m d e s i r e t h a t i t
y
be c o r r e l a t e d a t t h e t i m e of the h e a r i n g s o t h a t
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y would e x i s t t o maybe p u t on a
m e d i c a l w i t n e s s t h a t I had f o r r e b u t t a l i n t h e
event t h a t it appeared necessary a f t e r t h e testi-
mony of D r . Goulding. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t M r .
Toole t h r o u g h h i s c l i e n t i s w i l l i n g t o pay f o r any
a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s t h a t may be made t o make D r .
Movius a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e t h e t e s t i m o n y may be
t a k e n from D r . Goulding, i f i t i s g o i n g t o be
t a k e n a t some e a r l y d a t e I would n o t r e s i s t i t ; on
t h e o t h e r hand i f Claimant i s g o i n g t o be e x p e c t e d
t o pay f o r making a d d i t i o n a l m e d i c a l w i t n e s s a v a i l -
a b l e a t t h a t t i m e I would r e s i s t t h e r e q u e s t t h a t
i s anticipated i n M r . Toole's statement.

"MR. TOOLE: I w i l l commit now t h a t i f we do
t h i s and i f M r . Whalen wants D r . Movius p r e s e n t
a t t h a t time, o r t o t a k e D r . Moviusls t i m e f o r
s u b s e q u e n t d e p o s i t i o n , we w i l l u n d e r t a k e t o pay t h e
c o s t of t h a t .
"THE COURT: Very w e l l .

"MR. TOOLE: Not o n l y h i s t i m e b u t t h e c o s t of
 the deposition as well.
"MR. WHALEN: With that, Your Hono,, and the
understanding that there will not be prolonged
delay, I have no objection to it.''
At the end of the hearing, counsel for appellants in-
formed the court he did not want to call Dr. Goulding and no fur-
ther effort was made for another hearing.
Dr. Movius also developed the significance of the lack
of oxygen experienced by claimant as an influence upon the develop-
ment of myocardial ischemia and stated that this factor can cause
coronary damage whether there was a preexisting coronary disease
or not. The testimony also pointed out the importance of physical
and emotional stress in connection with the development of myo-
cardial ischemia. We find such testimony to be both substantial
and convincing.
We realize that in dealing with elusive diseases and in
the effect of a traumatic injury in aggravating a preexisting
disease, learned medical authorities often differ. It is our
duty, however, to construe the Workmen's Compensation Act liberally
so that the humane purposes of the Act can be carried out. Sec-

tion 92-838, R.C.M. 1947. When there is a doubt, the doubt should
be resolved in favor of the injured workman. Gaffney v. Industrial
Accident Board, 129 Mont. 394, 287 P.2d 256.
Appellants throughout argument stressed that this Court
should return the matter to the Division, citing Johnson v. Indus-
trial Accident Board, 157 14ont. 221, 483 P.2d 918. In Johnson this
Court returned the matter to the Division when it determined
that medical evidence was admitted for the first time at the dis-
trict court hearing. Such is not the fact situation here for Dr.
Goulding's findings were considered by the Division's hearing
examiner. He, not the district judge, brought the material into
evidence, and the problems arose at the court hearing because Dr.
Goulding was not available for cross-examination.
Three recent cases are of import to our consideration
here. McAndrews v. Schwartz, Mont. , 523 P.2d 1379, 31
St.Rep. 517; Bagley v. Florence Hotel Co., Mont. , 526
P.2d 1372, 31 St.Rep. 766; Rasmussen v. Gibson Products Co.,
Mont. , 527 P.2d 563, 565, 567, 31 St.Rep. 860.
In McAndrews, after being denied compensation by the
Board, claimant appealed to the district court which, upon hear-
ing testimony of the claimant and Cr. Sims, who had not testi-
fied at the Board hearing, reversed the Board. Factwise the
medical testimony involved was not sufficient to move this Court
to hold that it was substantial. The district court's judgment
was set aside and the order of the Division affirmed.
In Bagley, a latent injury case, the Division found that
the employer was estopped to deny a claim after over a year had
run. The district court overruled the Division and this Court
upheld its ruling, noting that the trial court had properly found
the evidence before the Division did not support the finding of
equitable estoppel.
In Rasmussen, this Court upheld the district court's
reversal of a denial of the claimant's petition. Speaking for
this Court Chief Justice James T. Harrison noted:
" * * * Respondent's testimony was more orderly
than that heard by the Division, but in substance
contained nothing new except for the fact she had
undergone surgery for a herniated disc after the
Division proceedings closed."
The Court further noted that such testimony as a whole was beyond
the scope of "additional evidence" as the term is used by the
statute but that the testimony of other witnesses, including her
previous employers and the doctor who did the surgery, was ad-
missible. The Court said:
"Obviously this testimony lends independent support
 t o D r . Humberger's o p i n i o n t h a t a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n -
s h i p e x i s t e d between r e s p o n d e n t ' s back t r o u b l e
i n 1972 and h e r i n j u r y a t Gibsons i n 1969. I n
s h o r t , t h e t e s t i m o n y t o o k on a d d i t i o n a l r e l e v a n c e
i n l i g h t of what D r . Humberger had t o s a y a t t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g . Respondent c o u l d n o t r e a s o n -
a b l y have f o r e s e e n t h i s a t t h e t i m e t h e D i v i s i o n
conducted i t s p r o c e e d i n g s ; a c c o r d i n g l y , a p p e l l a n t s '
o b j e c t i o n on t h i s p o i n t i s n o t w e l l t a k e n .

"We t h i n k t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d f i n d a p r e -
ponderance of c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n respond-
e n t ' s c l a i m , b o t h from t h e a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e
p r e s e n t e d a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g and t h e
r e c o r d of t h e D i v i s i o n . "

T h a t same argument c a n be made i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e f o r t h e f i n d -

i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .

L i k e w i s e , w e have r e c o g n i z e d t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t a n employee

s u f f e r i n g from a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i s n o t d e n i e d compensation

i f t h e d i s a b i l i t y w a s a g g r a v a t e d o r a c c e l e r a t e d by i n d u s t r i a l
injury. I n B i r n i e v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39, 328 P.2d

1 3 3 , we a f f i r m e d an award where trauma had a c c e l e r a t e d a p r e e x i s t -

ing a r t h r i t i c condition. I n Young, w e a f f i r m e d a n award where

s h o c k , a n x i e t y and e x c e s s i v e e x e r t i o n under t r y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s

aggravated an a r t e r i o s c l e r o t i c condition. Furthermore, i n

Weakley v . Cook, 126 Mont. 332, 249 P.2d 926, w e a f f i r m e d a n award

where a workman s u f f e r i n g from a r t e r i o s c l e r o s i s had s u s t a i n e d

a f a l l and had d i e d from c o r o n a r y t h r o m b o s i s . W b e l i e v e t h e same
e

principle applies t o t h e i n s t a n t case.

The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

Justice
i
We c o n c u r : - I .

-----
Justices
- 11 -
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles dissenting:
I dissent. I would reverse the judgment and order the
matter returned to the Workmen's Compensation Division for
findings on the medical testimony.
Dr. Goulding, the independent medical expert relied on
by the Division, testified the arteriosclerosis could not have
been aggravated by the injury and resultant stress. Dr. P4ovius,
at the hearing before the district court, did not, in my view,
testify to any materially different or new matters. He merely
disputed the other two doctors.
Dr. Goulding was not the defendants', appellants here,
witness. He was the Division's witness. If the district court
considered that Dr. Goulding's report was improperly received
and therefore prejudicial, it should have remanded the matter to
the Division so that claimant might have the opportunity of
cross-examining Dr. Goulding. That is what I would now order.
The majority opinion finds, on the first issue, that the Division
erred in basing its decision upon an independent medical report
made by a physician appointed by the Division and accompanied by
denial of the right to cross-examine and rebut.
Absent the Dr. Goulding medical opinion, the district
court simply chose the opinion of Dr. Movius as against the con-
flicting opinion of Dr. Roussalis. Whereas, the Division had
chosen the opinion of Dr. Roussalis as bolstered by the independ-
ent opinion of Dr. Goulding. Remand to the Division is the
proper remedy because this Court or the district court is other-
wise placed in the position of having to pick and choose wnich
of the conflicting opinions should be accepted. This is a task
properly for the trier of fact and should not be determined on
appeal. Remand is a well recognized technique for this situation.
See Johnson v. Industrial Accident Board, 157 Mont. 221, 225,
483 P.2d 918, where this Court unanimously said:
"Finally the scope of a district court's power
to reverse an order of the Industrial Accident
Board was described in Moffett v. Bozeman Canning
Co., 95 Mont. 347, 351, 26 P.2d 973, as:
"'The district court on appeal from the board is
not justified in reversing a finding of the board
unless the evidence clearly preponderates against
such finding.' In fact, a ruling by the Indus-
trial Accident Board is presumed to be correct,
and in the instant case the only evidence heard
by the district court that had not been heard
by the Board in the 1965 hearing was the testimony
of Dr. Itoh, previously referred to. Therefore,
the evidence before the district court clearly
did not preponderate against the Board's order
of 1966, hence the ruling of the Board should
have been affirmed in the district court.
"The cause is reversed and remanded to the
district court with directions to return the
matter to the Industrial Accident Board for its
further consideration with regard to the specific
injury statute application."
See also: Dean v. First Trust Company, 152 Mont. 469, 452 P.2d

To the same effect are the three cases cited in the
majority opinion, McAndrews, Bagley, and Rasmussen. The majority
opinion walks away from the effects of this line of cases by
finding that Dr. Movius's subsequent testimony was "substantial
and convincing". Thus, this Court has now become the finder of
fact in gauging the quality of medical opinion.

4 Justice