No. 14223
I N THE S P E 4 CCUR!I' O THE STATE O MONTANA
U R CE F F
1978
Claimant and Respondent,
THE REBER COMPANY, r n l o y e r ,
and
AFGOIWVT INSURANCE CaMPANY,
Defendant and Appllant.
Appeal from: hbrkers' Canpensation Court
Hon. William E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Harris, Jackson & W d o , Helena, Pbntana
John Grant argued, Helena, Pbntana
For Respondent:
Keller, Reynolds a d Drake, Helena, Wntana
r
Paul T. Keller argued, Helena, Wntana
Sutanitted: Novemkr 1 4 1978
Decided :
NOV 2 7 1 5
98
Filed :
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
On ~ u l y 4 , 1973, w h i l e employed a s a plumber by The
2
~eber
Company, Howard S t r a n d b e r g f e l l from a l a d d e r and
fractured h i s l e f t hip. Argonaut I n s u r a n c e Company, Reber
Company's P l a n 2 w o r k e r s ' compensation c a r r i e r , p a i d S t r a n d -
b e r g temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y .
S t r a n d b e r g , 53 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t ,
a t t e m p t e d t o r e t u r n t o work f o r Reber i n O c t o b e r , 1974, b u t
found he w a s u n a b l e t o keep up a s a plumber, p r i m a r i l y
b e c a u s e of p a i n and l a c k of m o b i l i t y . A f t e r a p e r i o d of two
and one-half d a y s , h e had t o t e r m i n a t e h i s employment.
S i n c e t h a t t i m e he h a s t r i e d v a r i o u s j o b s s u c h a s t r u c k
d r i v i n g , i r r i g a t i n g and f e n c i n g b u t h a s been u n a b l e t o f i n d
work i n v o l v i n g s i t t i n g o r s t a n d i n g t h a t he c o u l d d o f o r any
l e n g t h of time without experiencing pain.
I n 1977 S t r a n d b e r g began t o complain of back problems.
A t t h i s p o i n t h e p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t
f o r a h e a r i n g o n h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r permanent t o t a l d i s -
ability. The c a s e was r e f e r r e d t o a h e a r i n g s examiner.
S t r a n d b e r g was s u b s e q u e n t l y examined by two o r t h o p e d i c
s p e c i a l i s t s who t e s t i f i e d , t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e manner i n
which h i s h i p had h e a l e d , S t r a n d b e r g had developed a Tren-
delenburg's g a i t , described a s a " l i s t i n g g a i t over t h e
h i p , " h i s l e f t l e g had s h o r t e n e d m e a s u r a b l y , and h e walked
w i t h a limp. These a f t e r e f f e c t s of t h e f r a c t u r e d h i p had i n
t u r n aggravated a p r e e x i s t i n g condition i n Strandberg's
s p i n e known a s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s , i n which o n e v e r t e b r a i s
n o t developed, r e s u l t i n g i n a n i n a b i l i t y f o r S t r a n d b e r g t o be
on h i s f e e t o r do heavy work f o r any l e n g t h o f t i m e .
While s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s i s a c h r o n i c c o n d i t i o n which
may become symptomatic w i t h a g e , b o t h examining p h y s i c i a n s
t e s t i f i e d t h e y f e l t S t r a n d b e r g ' s l i m p , as a r e s u l t of h i s
f r a c t u r e d h i p , a c c e l e r a t e d and a g g r a v a t e d t h e p r e e x i s t i n g
condition.
On t h e b a s i s o f t h i s u n d i s p u t e d t e s t i m o n y t h e h e a r i n g s
examiner made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law f a v o r -
a b l e t o Strandberg. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t a d o p t e d
t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and d e n i e d A r g o n a u t ' s p e t i t -
ion f o r a rehearing. From t h e judgment and d e n i a l of t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r a r e h e a r i n g , Argonaut a p p e a l s .
The i s s u e w e a r e asked t o d e c i d e i s whether a p e r s o n
i n j u r e d i n a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o compensa-
t i o n when a n i n j u r y t o one p a r t of h i s body r e s u l t s i n t h e
a g g r a v a t i o n of a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i n a n o t h e r p a r t of
t h e body. W e h o l d t h a t h e i s and a f f i r m t h e Workers' Com-
pensation Court.
W e have l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h e d o c t r i n e i n Montana 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 was a g g r a v a t e d o r
a c c e l e r a t e d by a n i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y . C l a r k v . H i l d e Con-
s t r u c t i o n Co. (1978), Mont. ,
- 576 P.2d 1112, 1 1 1 4 ,
35 St.Rep. 353, 355; Bond v. S t . Regis P a p e r Co. (1977),
Mont. , 571 P.2d 372, 374, 34 St.Rep. 1237, 1240;
Rumsey v . C a r d i n a l P e t r o l e u m ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 1 7 , 28, 530
P.2d 433, 439. The r u l e i s t h a t when p r e e x i s t i n g d i s e a s e s
a r e a g g r a v a t e d by a n i n j u r y and d i s a b i l i t i e s r e s u l t , s u c h
d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e t o be t r e a t e d and c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e r e s u l t
of t h e i n j u r y . Gaffney v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board ( 1 9 5 5 ) ,
129 Mont. 394, 403, 287 P.2d 256, 260.
A p p e l l a n t would now have u s l i m i t t h i s d o c t r i n e t o
cases where t h e p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n a f f e c t e d o n l y t h a t
p a r t of t h e body s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j u r e d i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l
accident. T h i s we d e c l i n e t o do. Such a h o l d i n g would
f o r c e u s i n t o a narrow and t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e
Workers' Compensation s t a t u t e s and t h u s d e f e a t t h e l i b e r a l
and humane i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e
b e n e f i t and p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i n j u r e d worker. Garland v .
Anaconda Co. (1978), Mont. , 581 P.2d 431, 433, 35
S t - R e p . 923, 926; Rumsey v . C a r d i n a l P e t r o l e u m , s u p r a , 166
Mont. a t 26, 530 P.2d a t 438; Levo v. General-Shea-Morrison
( 1 9 5 5 ) , 128 Mont. 570, 571, 280 P.2d 1086, 1087.
N e i t h e r do p r e v i o u s c a s e s s u g g e s t s u c h a l i m i t e d doc-
trine. W e a l l o w e d r e c o v e r y i n Gaffney where a f a l l a g g r a -
vated p r e e x i s t i n g P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e and c e r e b r a l a r t e r i a l
s c l e r o s i s b o t h o f which, l i k e S t r a n d b e r g ' s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s ,
a r e p r o g r e s s i v e d i s e a s e s of a d e g e n e r a t i v e n a t u r e . In
Weakley v . Cook ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 126 Mont. 332, 249 P.2d 926, a
p r e e x i s t i n g h e a r t c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d when t h e c l a i m a n t
f e l l backwards. I n M o f f e t t v . Bozeman Canning Co. (1933),
95 Mont. 347, 26 P.2d 973, a n unexpected back s t r a i n t r i g -
g e r e d p r e e x i s t i n g P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e of t h e nervous system.
I n b o t h c a s e s compensation was a l l o w e d .
S e e a l s o t h e r e c e n t c a s e of C l o s e v . S t . Regis Paper
Co. (19771, Mont. , 573 P.2d 1 6 3 , 34 St.Rep. 1528,
where a blow t o t h e c l a i m a n t ' s head a g g r a v a t e d a dormant
c o n d i t i o n i n h e r neck. This i s analogous t o t h e i n j u r y t o
S t r a n d b e r g ' s h i p a g g r a v a t i n g a dormant c o n d i t i o n i n h i s
lower back. W e have a l s o h e l d t h a t where a n i n d u s t r i a l
a c c i d e n t c a u s e s p r e e x i s t i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems t o f l a r e
up t h e c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o compensation. Schumacher v .
Empire S t e e l Mfg. Co. (19771, ,
- Mont. - 574 P.2d 987,
988, 34 St.Rep. 1112, 1114. Clearly i n these cases there is
no c o n n e c t i o n between t h e s i t e of t h e s u b s e q u e n t i n j u r y and
t h e p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n and no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e r e must
be s u c h a p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p .
A l l t h a t i s necessary i s t h a t t h e accident aggravate o r
accelerate the preexisting disease o r disability. Under
s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e c l a i m a n t must "produce s u f f i c i e n t
evidence, d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l t o cause i n t h e
u n p r e j u d i c e d mind a c o n v i c t i o n t h a t s u c h w a s t h e f a c t . "
Gaffney, 129 Mont. a t 404-05, 287 P.2d a t 261. Proof t h a t
i t was m e d i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t t o
a g g r a v a t e a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i s a c c e p t a b l e proof of
disability. V i e t s v. Sweet G r a s s County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont .
,
- 583 P.2d 1070, 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1364, 1366-67. Here,
S t r a n d b e r g m e t t h i s burden of proof a s shown i n p a r t by t h i s
e x c e r p t from t h e d e p o s i t i o n of one of t h e examining p h y s i -
c i a n s , D r . Harris Hanson:
"Q. And how a b o u t h i s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s i n h i s
back. Was i t a f f e c t e d by t h i s i n j u r y ? A. On
t h e b a s i s o f what I found on t h e X-rays, I t h i n k
t h i s was a p r e e x i s t i n g problem, b u t w i t h h i s
s h o r t e n i n g and h i s l i m p , t h e s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s
and t h e d e g e n e r a t i v e changes a b o u t h i s back
p r o b a b l y have been a f f e c t e d by i t y e t .
"Q. They have been a g g r a v a t e d , would you s a y ?
A. Yes."
The d e p o s i t i o n of D r . R o b e r t Seim, t h e examining d o c t o r
f o r Argonaut, i s t o t h e same e f f e c t . Likewise, undisputed
e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t S t r a n d b e r g was u n a b l e t o r e t u r n t o
h i s former o c c u p a t i o n o r t o perform any j o b f o r more t h a n a
c o u p l e of h o u r s a t any t i m e .
On q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d , o u r
f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g d e c i s i o n s of t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o a s c e r t a i n i n g whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
e x i s t s t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h a t
court. I f t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e
court's findings, we cannot overturn the decision. Jensen
v. Zook Bros. Construction Co. (1978), Mont. , 582
P.2d 1191, 1193, 35 St.Rep. 1066, 1068. On the record
before us we find the requisite substantial evidence to
support the finding of the Workers' Compensation Court that
Strandberg's industrial accident to his hip aggravated his
preexisting spinal condition resulting in permanent total
disability.
Section 92-713, R.C.M. 1947, authorizes the reopening
and proper adjustment of a workers' compensation case "[ilf
aggravation ... takes place or [is] discovered after . ..
compensation [is] terminated in any case." This language
indicates that the legislature recognized the possibility
that aggravation of an injury may occur after the normal
period of compensation has expired, as occurred here. The
Workerst Compensation Court acted correctly under the au-
thorization of this statute.
The judgment of the Workerst Compensation Court is
affirmed.
We Concur:
?LLd Gk!&4yJLP
Chief Justice