Leary v. Anaconda Co.

No. 13436 IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF T l STATE OF MONTANA IE 1978 WILLIAM J. LEARY, Claimant and Appellant, THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, and THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Insurer and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Stephen M. Williams argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: January 30, 1978 FEB Decided. 2 i 11i'd : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court : Claimant William J. Leary s u f f e r e d a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n a t approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. A t t h e time of t h e a t t a c k , claimant was employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda Company a t i t s p l a n t i n Anaconda, Montana. Claimant submitted a workers' compensation claim s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r ; i t was denied by h i s employer. O November 18, 1975, claimant n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation Division requesting a determination of t h e compensability of t h e claim. He f u r t h e r requested c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e penalty f o r t h e employer's r e f u s a l t o pay compensation pre- s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 92-849, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n was held on January 21, 1976, i n t h e Workers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, t h e Court entered i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law denying t h e claim i n i t s e n t i r e t y , on t h e b a s i s t h a t claimant f a i l e d t o demonstrate h i s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from unusual s t r a i n while engaged i n work a c t i v i t y . Claimant appeals. A t t h e time of h i s h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant was 53 years of age and had been employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda Company f o r 20 years. For a period of four t o f i v e years p r i o r t o t h e h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant worked a job known a s t h e "swing job1'. Each week claimant worked two days a t t h e smelter s t a c k s u b s t a t i o n connecting and disconnecting e l e c t r i c a l switches; two days were spent a t t h e main s u b s t a t i o n taking meter readings and compiling r e p o r t s , and one day he worked i n p l a n t maintenance. While engaged i n p l a n t maintenace, claimant was a v a i l a b l e f o r work wherever an e l e c t r i c i a n was needed a t t h e smelter. O December 11, 1974, while working p l a n t maintenance, n claimant and h i s p a r t n e r , Thomas Brebrick, were s e n t t o t h e o l d phosphate p l a n t t o disconnect two 2,300 v o l t switches. The o l d in prior phosphate p l a n t had not beenloperation f o r some time/ t o December 11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature i n the b u i l d i n g was approximately 30' t o 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy clothing. I n o r d e r t o reach t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick climbed t h r e e t o four f l i g h t s of s t a i r s . I n t h e process of obtaining l i g h t i n g equipment and a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e power was shut down p r i o r t o disconnection of t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick ascended and descended t h e s t a i r s s e v e r a l times. The switches were on wheels enabling them t o be moved. To move t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick l i f t e d them over pieces of angle i r o n fastened t o t h e f r o n t of t h e wheels. Estimates of t h e weight of t h e switches ranged from 100 t o 300 pounds, t o a maximum of 800 pounds. The work a t t h e phosphate p l a n t was completed s h o r t l y a f t e r 1 1 : O O a.m. Claimant experienced no ill f e e l i n g a t t h i s time. Claimant and Brebrick returned t o t h e foundry with t h e i r equipment and prepared f o r lunch. A t approximately 12:30 p.m., a f t e r f i n i s h i n g lunch, claimant began t o experience a s e n s a t i o n of i n a b i l i t y t o r e l a x and, l a t e r , i n d i g e s t i o n and pressure on h i s arms. Claimant returned t o t h e job, b u t r e s t e d u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended a t 3:00 p.m. Claimant then drove home and r e t i r e d f o r t h e evening. The following morning, claimant was examined by D r . Huffman a t Community Hospital i n Anaconda. The c o n d i t i o n was diagnosed a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , and claimant was irnmedia t e l y h o s p i t a l i z e d . Claimant remained i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r fourteen days. D r . Huffman t r e a t e d claimant u n t i l March 17, 1975, when claimant was r e l e a s e d t o r e t u r n t o work. Following h i s r e l e a s e , claimant submitted h i s claim f o r compensation. This a c t i o n ensued from t h e d e n i a l of t h a t claim. Claimant r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal. Critical t o the r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case i s t h e determination of whether c l a i m a n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from work r e l a t e d s t r e s s o r s t r a i n . Section 92-418(1), R.C.M. 1947. I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, t h e workers' Compensation Court found: "That according t o medical evidence, t h e h e a r t a t t a c k s u f f e r e d over one and one-half hours a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and a f t e r t h e claimant had e a t e n lunch, t h e work a c t i v i t y i s n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a r t attack.'' The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, a s a matter of law, t h a t claimant had n o t proved by a preponderance of t h e evidence t h a t t h e job a c t i v i t y was t h e cause of t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The findings and conclusions demonstrate t h a t , i n determining t h e l a c k of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e Workers' Compensation Court r e l i e d almost exclusively upon a l e t t e r submitted by D r . Walter J . Lewis 111, a Missoula c a r d i o l o g i s t , who examined claimant some two months following t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The l e t t e r was w r i t t e n primarily a s a response t o c e r t a i n h y p o t h e t i c a l ques- t i o n s posed t o claimant's physician, D r . Huffman, i n t h e deposition of the l a t t e r . D r . Huffman i n d i c a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n and i n o t h e r docu- ments before t h e workers' Compensation Court, t h a t he found a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e strenuous work a c t i v i t y involved i n climbing numerous f l i g h t s of s t a i r s and l i f t i n g heavy e l e c t r i c a l switches, and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . However, t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l ques- t i o n s posed, although assuming v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s produced a t t h e subsequent t r i a l , e s t a b l i s h e d no time r e f e r e n c e between t h e work a c t i v i t y and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . That i s , t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l s r e f e r t o t h e symptoms of t h e a t t a c k occurring " s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y . " D r . Lewis, i n commenting on the h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , i n d i c a t e s the time period elapsing between t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and t h e onset of symptoms i s c r i t i c a l . He s t a t e s i f t h e h e a r t a t t a c k occurred within one-half hour of t h e c e s s a t i o n of work, he could s t a t e t h e two were c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d . However, i f t h e h e a r t a t t a c k , a s h e r e , occurred one and one-half hours following t h e completion of t h e a c t i v i t y , they would n o t be c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d . W note i n t h i s regard t h a t n e i t h e r physician t e s t i f i e d a t t h e e January 21 hearing. While t h e findings and conclusions r e f e r t o and appear t o be based upon t h e l e t t e r of D r . Lewis, nowhere i s any r e f e r e n c e made t o t h e medical opinion of D r . Huffman. W a r e unable t o e a s c e r t a i n from t h e findings and conclusions t h e b a s i s f o r o r reasoning behind t h e r e j e c t i o n of such opinion. Upon a thorough review of t h e record, we t h e r e f o r e conclude t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t medical testimony t o support t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The f i n d i n g s and conclusions a r e vacated and t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e Workers' Compensation Court with d i r e c t i o n s t h a t a d d i t i o n a l medical testimony regarding t h e h e a r t a t t a c k be taken. ing ~ k i e f us dice Justices .