No. 79-44
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
LESTER D. LITTLE,
Claimant and Respondent,
STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS, Employer,
U. S.F. & G. and INDUSTRIAL
INDEMNITY COMPANYI
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Garlington, Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
Larry Riley argued, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Goldman and Goldman, Missoula, Montana
Bernard Goldman argued, Missoula, Montana
Marra, Wenz, Iwen and Johnson, Great Falls, Montana
David A. Hopkins argued, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted: April 17, 1980
Decided: 7 c
dL(t I lgp~n
"
Filed:
Honorable J o s e p h B. Gary, D i s t r i c t J u d g e , d e l i v e r e d t h e
Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .
c l a i m a n t , who had had t r o u b l e w i t h a knee s i n c e 1941,
i n j u r e d h i s knee on two s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s i n 1978 w h i l e
working f o r S t r u c t u r a l Systems, I n c . The f i r s t i n j u r y
o c c u r r e d on A p r i l 4 , 1978, when t h e c l a i m a n t s l i p p e d on a
r o o f of t h e Craighead Apartments a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of
Montana i n M i s s o u l a , Montana. A t t h a t time, S t r u c t u r a l
Systems was i n s u r e d f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation p u r p o s e s by
U.S.F.&G. C l a i m a n t ' s second i n j u r y o c c u r r e d on J u n e 6 ,
1978, when c l a i m a n t was c a r r y i n g i r o n b a r s w h i l e working on
t h e Reserve S t r e e t B r i d g e i n Missoula. A t t h e t i m e of t h e
second a c c i d e n t , I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity Co. was S t r u c t u r a l
Systems' i n s u r e r f o r w o r k e r s ' compensation p u r p o s e s .
Both i n j u r i e s w e r e i n f l i c t e d upon c l a i m a n t ' s r i g h t
knee. Claimant d i d n o t c o n s u l t a doctor a f t e r t h e f i r s t
a c c i d e n t and was a b l e t o c o n t i n u e working a l t h o u g h he con-
t i n u e d t o e x p e r i e n c e s e v e r e d i f f i c u l t i e s and p a i n w i t h t h e
knee. C l a i m a n t a l s o c o n t i n u e d t o work f o r a month a f t e r t h e
second a c c i d e n t u n t i l he w a s l a i d o f f . A t that time, he
sought medical a t t e n t i o n . I t w a s determined t h a t claimant
was t e m p o r a r i l y t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d pending a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a -
t i o n by t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t .
C l a i m a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t on November 1 5 , 1978, a g a i n s t U.S.F.&G. and I n d u s t r i a l
Indemnity. A p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e was h e l d , and a f u l l
h e a r i n g began on A p r i l 1 0 , 1979. The c o u r t e n t e r e d a n
i n t e r i m o r d e r on A p r i l 23, 1979, i n which U.S.F.&G. and
I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity were o r d e r e d t o r e i m b u r s e c l a i m a n t f o r
a l l a c c r u e d temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s and m e d i c a l
e x p e n s e s on an e q u a l s h a r e b a s i s . On September 28, 1979,
t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s 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 h o l d i n g t h a t U.S.F.&G. was t o r e i m b u r s e I n d u s t r i a l
Indemnity f o r any and a l l b e n e f i t s t h a t had been p a i d pur-
suant t o the court's interim order. The c o u r t h e l d t h a t
c l a i m a n t ' s b e n e f i t s stemmed p r i m a r i l y from one i n j u r y which
o c c u r r e d on A p r i l 4 , 1978, and which was r e i n j u r e d and
a g g r a v a t e d on J u n e 6, 1978. S i n c e t h e second i n j u r y w a s
m e r e l y a n 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 , t h e c o u r t
took t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t U.S.F.&G. was l i a b l e f o r c l a i m a n t ' s
b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e , a c c o r d i n g t o Montana law, i t w a s improper
t o a p p o r t i o n t h e l i a b i l i t y f o r w o r k e r s t compensation bene-
f i t s between s u c c e s s i v e i n s u r e r s .
From t h i s judgment, U.S.F.&G. a p p e a l s and r a i s e s t h e
following issue:
Whether t h e c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a n 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 on J u n e 6 , 1978; i f s o , whether t h e
i n s u r e r on t h e r i s k a t t h e t i m e of t h e l a s t i n j u r i o u s
exposure i s l i a b l e f o r t h e r e s u l t i n g d i s a b i l i t y ?
U.S.F.&G. s u b m i t s t h a t t h e r e i s no d i s p u t e by t h e
p a r t i e s t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d i n f a c t s u f f e r a n 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 on J u n e 6 , 1978. I t f u r t h e r submits
t h a t c l a i m a n t had a h i s t o r y o f knee t r o u b l e and t h a t t h e
A p r i l 4 , 1978, a c c i d e n t was a l s o a n a g g r a v a t i o n of a p r e -
e x i s t i n g i n j u r y which would have e n t i t l e d him t o b e n e f i t s
had he i n c u r r e d m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s o r l o s t wages. I t con-
t e n d s , however, t h a t on J u n e 6 c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a new and
compensable i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t and t h a t s i n c e t h i s was t h e
d i s a b l i n g i n j u r y c a u s i n g him t o s e e k m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n ,
I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity Co. i s s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r compen-
s a t i n g claimant.
U.S.F.&G. p r e m i s e s i t s argument on t h e w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d
d o c t r i n e i n Montana t h a t a n employer t a k e s a n employee a s he
f i n d s him. I t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t ' s r u l i n g w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e above d o c t r i n e and t h a t
t h e " l a s t i n j u r i o u s exposure" r u l e should o p e r a t e here,
p l a c i n g t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r c l a i m a n t ' s compensation on
I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity.
I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity a r g u e s t h a t under H a r t l v. Big Sky
of Montana, I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 540, 579 P.2d 1239, 35
St.Rep. 806, i t i s improper t o a p p o r t i o n w o r k e r s ' compensa-
t i o n b e n e f i t s between s u c c e s s i v e i n s u r e r s . I t submits t h a t
t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation c o u r t c o r r e c t l y f o l l o w e d t h e
d i c t a t e s of H a r t l i n h o l d i n g U.S.F.&G. l i a b l e f o r compensa-
t i n g claimant. I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity a l s o c i t e s Newman v.
Kamp (1962) , 1 4 0 Mont. 487, 374 P.2d 100, f o r t h e p r o p o s i -
t i o n t h a t where a second i n j u r y o c c u r s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t
i n j u r y i s h e a l e d , t h e f i r s t c a r r i e r i s l i a b l e f o r a l l com-
p e n s a t i o n , and t h e second c a r r i e r i s r e l i e v e d of l i a b i l i t y .
I t c o n t e n d s t h a t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e i s a p l e t h o r a of
m e d i c a l and l a y t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e i n j u r y r e s u l t -
i n g from c l a i m a n t ' s f i r s t a c c i d e n t had n o t c o m p l e t e l y h e a l e d
a t t h e t i m e of t h e second a c c i d e n t . Therefore, I n d u s t r i a l
Indemnity c o n t e n d s t h a t b o t h H a r t l and Newman p r o v i d e ample
a u t h o r i t y f o r h o l d i n g U.S.F.&G. l i a b l e f o r c l a i m a n t ' s com-
pensa t i o n .
C l a i m a n t i n t h i s c a s e b a s i c a l l y a g r e e s w i t h t h e Workers'
Compensation C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n h o l d i n g U.S.F.&G. liable for
h i s compensation.
F i r s t of a l l , i n examining t h e c o n t e n t i o n s by t h e
p a r t i e s t o t h i s appeal, it should be pointed o u t t h a t t h i s
C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h e t e s t of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e
e v i d e n c e t o b e whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . S e e S t a m a t i s v.
B e c h t e l Power Co. (1979), - Mont. , 601 P.2d 403, 36
St.Rep. 1866; Head v . Larson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. ,
- 592 P.2d
507, 36 St.Rep. 571; S t r a n d b e r g v . Reber Company ( 1 9 7 8 ) , -
Mont. , 587 P.2d 1 8 , 35 St.Rep. 1742; J e n s e n v . Zook
B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company (1978) , - Mont. , 582
P.2d 1191, 35 St.Rep. 1066. I n S t a m a t i s and J e n s e n , t h i s
C o u r t f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t where t h e f i n d i n g s a r e based on
c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on r e v i e w i s
c o n f i n e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and n o t t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e
i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support c o n t r a r y findings.
With t h a t a s t h e b a s i c p r e m i s e , w e w i l l t h e n examine
t h e f a c t s and t h e law a p p l i c a b l e t h e r e t o .
I t i s u n d i s p u t e d i n Montana t h a t a n employer t a k e s h i s
employee s u b j e c t t o t h e employee's p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n a t t h e
t i m e of employment. I t i s a l s o u n d i s p u t e d t h a t a n aggrava-
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 s a compensable i n j u r y
under t h e Workers' Compensation Act. Robins v. Anaconda
Aluminum Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 514, 575 P.2d 67, 35 St.Rep.
213; Schumacher v. Empire S t e e l Mfg. Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 175 Mont.
4 1 1 , 574 P.2d 9871 34 S t - R e p . 1 1 1 2 .
Where t h e r e have been two a c c i d e n t s , e a c h o c c u r r i n g
under a d i f f e r e n t i n s u r e r , and t h e second happens b e f o r e t h e
f i r s t i n j u r y i s c o m p l e t e l y h e a l e d , t h e second a c c i d e n t i s
i n c i d e n t t o t h e f i r s t and t h e f i r s t i n s u r e r i s r e q u i r e d t o
pay a l l compensation. Newrnan v. Kamp, s u p r a . This i s so
b e c a u s e i n Montana t h e r e i s no a p p o r t i o n m e n t of w o r k e r s '
compensation b e n e f i t s between s u c c e s s i v e i n s u r e r s . Hart1 v.
Big Sky of Montana, I n c . , supra.
There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t h e r e s u f f e r e d a
compensable i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y . The main f a c t u a l i s s u e
b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t was which c a r r i e r was
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r compensating c l a i m a n t . R e s o l u t i o n of t h i s
i s s u e r e s t s on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e second i n j u r y
was s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t o r merely a n a g g r a v a t i o n of a
preexisting condition. I n e s s e n c e , t h e n , r e s o l u t i o n of
l i a b i l i t y i s d e p e n d e n t on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which p a r t i c u -
l a r i n j u r y w a s t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of t h e p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n
f o r which c l a i m a n t s e e k s compensation.
The Workers' Compensation C o u r t , i n e f f e c t , h e l d t h a t
t h e second i n j u r y , s i n c e i t o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e f i r s t had
c o m p l e t e l y h e a l e d , was m e r e l y a n 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 and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e f i r s t i n j u r y was t h e
p r o x i m a t e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y . U.S.F.&G. con-
t e n d s t h a t t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c o r d
and t h a t t h e second i n j u r y was s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t from
the f i r s t . U.S.F.&G. b a s e s i t s argument on t h e f a c t t h a t
c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d t o work a f t e r t h e f i r s t a c c i d e n t and d i d
n o t s e e k m e d i c a l h e l p ; however, i t a r g u e s , h e d i d see a
d o c t o r and q u i t working a f t e r t h e second a c c i d e n t . It
c o n t e n d s t h a t under o u r h o l d i n g i n H a r t l , I n d u s t r i a l Indem-
n i t y should be l i a b l e . T h i s i s n o t , however, a c o m p l e t e l y
a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e f a c t s of e i t h e r t h i s c a s e o r of
Hartl.
The t e s t i m o n y o f D r . C . G . Cragg, a n o r t h o p e d i c s u r -
geon, i n d i c a t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t had had knee problems s i n c e
1941. Both a c c i d e n t s , i n h i s o p i n i o n , were a g g r a v a t i o n s of
t h a t preexisting condition. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e
t i m e of t h e J u n e 6 a c c i d e n t , c l a i m a n t had n o t r e c o v e r e d from
the April 4 accident.
The r e c o r d showed t h a t c l a i m a n t was somewhat s t o i c a l
and had a h i g h t o l e r a n c e f o r p a i n . I t a l s o showed t h a t
c l a i m a n t a t t i m e s had c o n t i n u e d t o work even though he w a s
i n pain. I n f a c t , c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d working a f t e r t h e J u n e
6 a c c i d e n t u n t i l h e was l a i d o f f . H e apparently sought
m e d i c a l h e l p t h e n b e c a u s e t h e p a i n had become t o o much and
b e c a u s e he was a f r a i d of d o i n g s t e e l w o r k above t h e ground
f o r f e a r of h i s knee c o l l a p s i n g .
I n H a r t l , t h e c l a i m a n t a l s o s u f f e r e d from a p r e e x i s t i n g
condition. The p h y s i c i a n t h e r e t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l l o f t h e
c l a i m a n t ' s back i n j u r i e s c o n t r i b u t e d t o h i s p r e s e n t c o n d i -
t i o n , and i t w a s i m p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e t h e a c c i d e n t s as t o
t h e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y . The p h y s i c i a n i n
Hartl, u n l i k e D r . Cragg h e r e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s most
r e c e n t i n j u r y w a s a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t one and h i s p r e s e n t
impairment was g r e a t e r a s a r e s u l t of i t . A s pointed o u t
above, D r . Cragg t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e J u n e 6 i n j u r y h e r e was
n o t a s e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t i n j u r y b u t m e r e l y an a g g r a v a t i o n
o f t h e p r e e x i s t i n g one.
I n c a s e s l i k e t h i s , i t i s incumbent on t h e i n s u r e r
s e e k i n g t o be r e l i e v e d from l i a b i l i t y t o e s t a b l i s h by a
p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s p r e s e n t
c o n d i t i o n was c a u s e d by a n a c c i d e n t o c c u r r i n g when t h e o t h e r
i n s u r e r was on r i s k . Newman v. Karnp, s u p r a , 374 P.2d a t
104. A r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t U.S.F.&G. has
f a i l e d t o do t h i s and t h a t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t .
U.S.F.&G. contends w e should apply t h e " l a s t i n j u r i o u s
e x p o s u r e " r u l e , a s s t a t e d i n 4 L a r s o n , The Law of Workmen's
Compensation S95.12 a t 17-71. T h i s C o u r t h a s , however,
p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h i s r u l e t o be i n a p p l i c a b l e i n Montana
because we are committed to the doctrine that the particular
injury must be the proximate cause of the present condition
for which the claimant seeks compensation. Newman, 374 P.2d
at 104.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support
the finding of the Workers' Compensation Court. Its deci-
sion is therefore affirmed.
One further matter merits discussion. This appeal
essentially involves only a question of liability between
the two insurers, with both U.S.F.&G. and Industrial Indem-
nity agreeing that claimant had suffered a compensable
injury. Claimant's attorney, however, filed a brief and
made an appearance at oral argument. He now requests attor-
ney fees and costs for that appearance. In a case such as
this, where the claimant is assured of compensation, it is
unnecessary for him to make an appearance other than the
filing of a short brief stating his position and that he
will not appear. As the appearance was unnecessary, claim-
ant's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal is
denied.
A£ firmed.
tdio-< Judge, sitting in &lace
o%;r~r.Justice Gene B. Daly
We concur:
Chief Justice