No. 81-179
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
TERRY JONES,
Claimant and Appellant,
vs.
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Employer and
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Hon. William Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Fennessy, Crocker and Fennessy, Libby, Montana
For Respondent:
Stephen C. Berg, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on briefs: October 1, 1981
Decided : DEC 3 I 19e1
Filed: lfEc 2 ? F9N1
w C
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
C l a i m a n t a p p e a l s from a judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t upholding d e f e n d a n t ' s d e n i a l of w o r k e r s ' compensation
benefits. The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e r e
was 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 Workers' Compensation
C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a cornpensable
i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e Montana Workers' Compensation
Act, s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA.
W r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation
e
Court.
C l a i m a n t i s a man i n h i s l a t e t h i r t i e s w i t h a h i g h
s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n and a y e a r of c o l l e g e . H e worked a s a
l o g g e r i n t h e CETA program i n 1976, when h e was s t r u c k by a
f a l l i n g tree and i n j u r e d h i s back. I n 1977 he was h i r e d by
S t . R e g i s Paper Company i n Libby, a lumber company e n r o l l e d
under P l a n I of t h e Workers' Compensation P l a n . I n 1978 he
was o f f t h e job f o r s e v e r a l months b e c a u s e of back problems
a l l e g e d l y c a u s e d by a n i n j u r y a t work which he b e l i e v e d
m i g h t have a g g r a v a t e d t h e back i n j u r y he s u f f e r e d i n 1976.
Defendant d e n i e d l i a b i l i t y and c l a i m a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e
Workers' Compensation C o u r t i n September o f 1979. On August
5 , 1980, t h a t c o u r t d e n i e d c l a i m a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r f a i l u r e
t o a f f o r d defendant proper notice. Claimant d i d n o t appeal.
J u d i c i a l n o t i c e was t a k e n of t h e p r i o r c l a i m by t h e Workers'
Compensation C o u r t d u r i n g i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p r e s e n t
claim. C l a i m a n t ' s back problems c a u s e d him t o m i s s s e v e r a l
months of work d u r i n g s p r i n g and summer of 1978. H i s condition
was d i a g n o s e d a s a " p r o t r u d i n g d i s c " and c l a i m a n t w a s g i v e n
m e d i c a t i o n f o r p a i n and t o r e l a x h i s m u s c l e s . H e returned
t o h i s work a s a lumber g r a d e r i n August of 1978, under a
d o c t o r ' s o r d e r s t h a t he do no heavy l i f t i n g . A helper w a s
a s s i g n e d t o do any heavy l i f t i n g which was n e c e s s a r y d u r i n g
t h e month b e f o r e t h e r e s t r i c t i o n was suspended. Claimant
s t a t e s t h a t h i s back h u r t him c o n s t a n t l y from t h e t i m e of
t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y i n March of 1978, and he f r e q u e n t l y took
valium t o c o n t r o l t h e pain.
C l a i m a n t ' s job r e q u i r e d him t o t u r n o v e r p i e c e s of
g r e e n lumber w i t h h i s l e f t hand, and g r a d e them, a s t h e y
were conveyed a l o n g a w a i s t - h i g h t a b l e . The p i e c e s of
lumber v a r i e d i n l e n g t h from e i g h t t o o v e r twenty f e e t and
i n w e i g h t from s e v e r a l pounds t o w e l l o v e r one hundred
pounds. O c c a s i o n a l l y t h e r e was a "jam-up," and c l a i m a n t was
r e q u i r e d t o jump up o n t o t h e t a b l e and l i f t o u t t h e jammed
boards. H e a l s o performed some c l e a n u p and maintenance work
around h i s machine when t h e r e was t i m e . When p o s s i b l e ,
c l a i m a n t performed h i s l i f t i n g from a "duck-squat" p o s i t i o n
t o p r o t e c t h i s back from p a i n and stress.
On J u n e 28, 1979, c l a i m a n t was examined by D r . Bohlman
of Libby f o r " a c u t e low back p a i n which [ c l a i m a n t ] s a i d came
on w i t h o u t p r o v o c a t i o n . " Dr. Bohlman deposed t h a t c l a i m a n t
". . . s t a t e d t h a t he had had t h i s i n t h e p a s t s e v e r a l
t i m e s , r a t h e r severely. . ." Dr. Bohlman t r e a t e d him w i t h
valium and a d v i s e d c l a i m a n t t o u s e h e a t on h i s back and
r e s t h i s back.
C l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t , n e a r t h e end of h i s s h i f t i n t h e
e a r l y morning o f August 2 1 , 1979, he was t u r n i n g a heavy
p i e c e o f lumber when he f e l t a sudden, s h a r p p a i n i n h i s
back, s o s e v e r e t h a t i t immobilized him f o r t h r e e t o f i v e
minutes. When t h e p a i n s u b s i d e d enough t h a t he c o u l d move,
c l a i m a n t s a i d , he resumed h i s work f o r a n hour o r s o , w i t h
a s l i t t l e a c t i v i t y a s p o s s i b l e , u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended, a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2:00 A.M. He r e t u r n e d home w i t h o u t n o t i f y i n g
a s u p e r v i s o r o f any a c c i d e n t , took valium and went t o bed.
When t h e p a i n was s t i l l p r e s e n t i n t h e morning, c l a i m a n t
a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t h i s foreman, Gary Hansen, t o l e t him
know he would m i s s work t h a t day. When h e was u n a b l e t o
c o n t a c t Hansen, c l a i m a n t c a l l e d J e r r y McKay, maintenance
s u p e r v i s o r of t h e p l a n t , and t o l d McKay he had h u r t h i s back
and was going t o s e e a d o c t o r . The f a c t s a r e d i s p u t e d a t
t h i s point. C l a i m a n t c a n n o t r e c a l l m e n t i o n i n g a n on t h e job
i n j u r y , and d o e s n o t r e c a l l McKay's a s k i n g him a b o u t an
a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y a t work. McKay d e c l a r e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n :
" I d i s t i n c t l y r e c a l l a s k i n g him i f he had a n
a c c i d e n t a t work. .. H i s r e p l y was t h a t he
d i d n ' t have a n a c c i d e n t a t work. .. I don' t
know i f he s a i d h e d i d i t d o i n g something
else. . ."
McKay c o n t a c t e d c l a i m a n t ' s foreman, Gary Hansen, when Hansen
came on s h i f t l a t e t h a t a f t e r n o o n . Hansen deposed t h a t
McKay t o l d him a n a c c i d e n t r e p o r t would n o t be n e c e s s a r y
b e c a u s e " a p p a r e n t l y he d i d i t a t home . . . moving something,
a r e f r i g e r a t o r o r something." Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
had n o t moved a r e f r i g e r a t o r , o r any o t h e r heavy o b j e c t , away
from t h e job.
C l a i m a n t saw D r . Bohlman i n Libby August 2 1 , 1979, and
Dr. Bohlman immediately a d m i t t e d him t o S t . J o h n ' s L u t h e r a n
H o s p i t a l i n Libby, where he s p e n t s i x d a y s i n t r a c t i o n
w i t h o u t any s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. Dr. Bohlman's r e c o r d s
do n o t mention whether c l a i m a n t ' s back i n j u r y o c c u r r e d a t
work, n o r d o e s he remember t h a t t h e m a t t e r was d i s c u s s e d ,
a l t h o u g h he s t a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t i t was h i s " u s u a l
p r a c t i c e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y i n q u i r e " a s t o t h e c a u s e of a
p a t i e n t ' s m e d i c a l problems. The c l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
probably said his back was injured "that night," but he
could not recall specifically stating that he had sustained
an injury on the job.
Claimant testified that at 4:15 P.M. August 21, 1979,
just before going into the hospital, he called Gary Hansen
and informed him he had hurt his back "that night" and was
going to be hospitalized. Gary Hansen, in his deposition,
denied that claimant contacted him; their only communication,
according to him, occurred on August 30, 1979, when Hansen
called to inquire after claimant's condition. At that time,
no reference was made to the cause of claimant's injury.
Gary Hansen's personal logbook, for the days following
claimant's alleged injury, is marked with an "A," which
Hansen said is the code for an accident suffered by an
employee off the job.
Claimant hitchhiked to Kalispell on August 27, 1979,
and spent ten days in traction under the care of Dr. Ingham,
again without significant relief of his discomfort. Dr.
Ingham suggested that a myelogram and even a spinal fusion
might be necessary; he referred claimant to Dr. Lynch in
Spokane. Dr. Ingham's report indicated that claimant had
back pain, went to work, and suffered increasing discomfort
during his shift. The insurance report from the Kalispell
Orthopedic Clinic, dated September 6, 1979, stated that the
back injury was caused by a "sawmill accident" on August 21,
1979.
Dr. Lynch in Spokane recommended a chairback brace,
and, when that provided some relief, he recommended a
lumbar fusion. His report stated that claimant's back
injury occurred when claimant was working at St. Regis Paper
Company. Surgery was performed by Dr. Shanks of Spokane on
December 1 9 , 1979. Dr. Shanks' r e p o r t a l s o n o t e d t h a t
c l a i m a n t s u s t a i n e d h i s i n j u r y w h i l e employed a s a machine
o p e r a t o r a t S t . Regis Paper Company. Dr. Shanks s u g g e s t e d
c l a i m a n t u n d e r t a k e a p o s t - s u r g i c a l t h e r a p y program t o b u i l d
up t h e muscle s t r e n g t h i n h i s lower back and recommended
t h a t c l a i m a n t n o t r e t u r n t o h i s p r e v i o u s employment u n t i l
h i s back muscles were s t r o n g e r . Dr. Shanks deposed t h a t
d u r i n g l a t e w i n t e r and s p r i n g of 1980, c l a i m a n t was " t o t a l l y
d i s a b l e d " and t h a t , a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, h i s muscle
s t r e n g t h had n o t improved t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he was r e a d y f o r
working. H e f u r t h e r deposed t h a t , from a m e d i c a l s t a n d p o i n t ,
c l a i m a n t s h o u l d b e permanently r e s t r i c t e d -- he s h o u l d do no
"heavy l i f t i n g , r e p e t i t i v e bending-type a c t i v i t i e s . "
Dr. Shanks was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t c l a i m a n t ' s " d e g e n e r a t i v e
disc disease." H e answered:
" ' [ D l i s e a s e ' i t s e l f i s a misnomer. I t ' s more
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h r o n i c trauma o r a c u t e trauma
w i t h r u p t u r e d d i s c s and sudden narrowing of t h e
d i s c s p a c e o r a narrowing of t h e d i s c s p a c e s
due t o d e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e d i s c due t o r e p e a t e d
s m a l l trauma. . . [Tlrauma i s i n j u r y e i t h e r
major o r minor o r r e p e t i t i v e - t y p e i n j u r i e s . "
Dr. Shanks b e l i e v e d c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n was p r e s e n t p r i o r
t o August, 1979. H e s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n t i n u a l bending and
l i f t i n g done by c l a i m a n t i n h i s job a t S t . Regis Paper
Company would c a u s e s t r e s s on t h e lower back, p a r t i c u l a r l y
when c l a i m a n t l i f t e d b o a r d s t o c l e a r a jam. He s a i d t h a t
s u c h s t r e s s c o u l d c a u s e d e g e n e r a t i o n of a n e x i s t i n g d e g e n e r a t i v e
d i s c c o n d i t i o n and c o u l d c a u s e s u d d e n l y i n c r e a s e d back p a i n .
C l a i m a n t f i l l e d o u t a r e p o r t of o c c u p a t i o n a l i n j u r y on
August 31, 1979; t h e r e p o r t was r e c e i v e d by S t . Regis P a p e r
Company on September 6 , 1979, w e l l w i t h i n t h e 60 day n o t i c e
r e q u i r e m e n t s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA.
On October 30, 1979, Ken S t a h l , p e r s o n n e l s p e c i a l i s t
w i t h S t . Regis Paper Company, n o t i f i e d c l a i m a n t t h a t S t .
Regis d i d n o t r e c o g n i z e l i a b i l i t y f o r h i s back problem and
r e f u s e d l i a b i l i t y f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation
Act. C l a i m a n t b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t on August 1 4 , 1980. The m a t t e r was h e a r d on October
8, 1980, and on F e b r u a r y 11, 1981, 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 , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment. A motion
f o r r e h e a r i n g was d e n i e d and c l a i m a n t a p p e a l s t o t h i s C o u r t .
C l a i m a n t r a i s e s o n l y one i s s u 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 judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a compensible i n j u r y a s
d e f i n e d by t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , s e c t i o n 39-71-119,
MCA .
I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment
d a t e d F e b r u a r y 11, 1981, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t
found:
"There i s no m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e
proposition t h a t the claimant suffered an
i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of 39-71-119 MCA
w h i l e i n t h e employ of S t . R e g i s Paper Company.
"The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e
i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back p a i n p r e -
d a t e d h i s v i s i t t o D r . Bohlman and s u b s e q u e n t
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and was n o t
a g g r a v a t e d by any e v e n t o c c u r r i n g on t h e job
on t h a t d a t e . The c l a i m a n t a p p a r e n t l y d i d n o t
c o n s i d e r h i s p a i n t h a t day a s b e i n g a r e s u l t
of an on t h e job i n c i d e n t , i n view of h i s d e n i a l
t o M r . McKay and h i s f a i l u r e t o r e p o r t a n
i n j u r y t o D r . Bohlman, D r . Ingham o r Gary
Hansen.
"At a l l t i m e s p e r t i n e n t h e r e t o t h e c l a i m a n t
w a s knowledgeable i n t h e b a s i c f u n c t i o n i n g of
t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation system w i t h r e g a r d
t o t h e r e p o r t i n g of a c c i d e n t s and i n j u r i e s
o c c u r r i n g on t h e job. H e had been a shop
s t e w a r d f o r h i s union and had a t t e n d e d many
s a f e t y m e e t i n g s a t which t h e s u b j e c t of t h e
n e c e s s i t y of r e p o r t i n g a c c i d e n t s w a s d i s c u s s e d
i n detail. H i s d e n i a l t o M r . McKay of t h e
o c c u r r e n c e of a n a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y , c o u p l e d
w i t h h i s f a i l u r e t o i n f o r m h i s p h y s i c i a n s and
Gary Hansen of s u c h a n e v e n t , t o g e t h e r w i t h
p a s t m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e of low back p a i n b e i n g
experienced seemingly w i t h o u t provocation
a l l c o n s t i t u t e e v i d e n c e t h a t no i n j u r y w i t h -
i n t h e meaning o f 39-71-119 MCA o c c u r r e d i n
t h i s case."
The b u l k o f d e f e n d a n t ' s argument i s d e v o t e d t o d e m o n s t r a -
t i n g t h a t , b e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o i m m e d i a t e l y
n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s and p h y s i c i a n s t h a t h e was i n j u r e d i n
a n a c c i d e n t on t h e j o b , t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t
he d i d n o t s u f f e r from " a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g of a t r a u m a t i c
nature. " Defendant a l s o t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t
cannot c o n s i s t e n t l y a l l e g e both t h a t h i s i n j u r y developed
g r a d u a l l y and t h a t i t was c a u s e d by a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t .
I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when 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 s u p p o r t i n g t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h o s e f i n d i n g s on a p p e a l .
L i t t l e v . S t r u c t u r a l Systems (1980) , Mont. , 614
P.2d 516, 518-519, 37 S t . R e p . 1187, 1189. Stamatis v.
B e c h t e l Power Co. (1979), Mont. , 601 P.2d 403,
405-406, 36 S t . R e p . 1866, 1869. However, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n c l u d e d above, and t h e a r g u m e n t s o f d e f e n d a n t
a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Montana c a s e law and t h e u n d i s p u t e d
f a c t s set f o r t h i n claimant's testimony-and i n depositions
by c l a i m a n t ' s p h y s i c i a n s .
Much e m p h a s i s i s p l a c e d upon c l a i m a n t ' s " f a i l u r e " t o
n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s t h a t he had been i n j u r e d i n a n a c c i d e n t
on t h e j o b . This f a i l u r e i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a n i n j u r y and i s t h e
f o u n d a t i o n f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s argument on a p p e a l . But t h e
g r e a t p r e p o n d e r a n c e of e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t , w h e t h e r o r
n o t c l a i m a n t b e l i e v e d h e s u f f e r e d a n i n j u r y on August 21,
1 9 7 9 , w h e t h e r o r n o t h e mentioned a n i n j u r y t o McKay and
Hansen and D r s . Bohlman and Ingham, h e was and i s i n c a p a c i t a t e d
a s a r e s u l t o f t h e trauma-induced, progressive degeneration
of d i s c s i n h i s b a c k , and t h a t c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d by
t h e u n u s u a l s t r a i n o f h i s work.
The n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t i n t h e Workers' Compensation
Act, s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t no c l a i m s u c h a s
t h e one a t b a r may b e c o n s i d e r e d compensable u n l e s s n o t i c e
of t h e t i m e , p l a c e , and n a t u r e o f t h e i n c i d e n t i s communicated
t o employer w i t h i n 60 d a y s . T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a n
i n j u r e d employee n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s o f a n a c c i d e n t o r
i n j u r y w i t h i n h o u r s o r d a y s of i t s o c c u r r e n c e , however
d e s i r a b l e s u c h n o t i f i c a t i o n may be. Claimant's notice t o
d e f e n d a n t t h a t h e had s u f f e r e d a n o c c u p a t i o n a l i n j u r y was
f i l l e d o u t by him on August 31, 1979, and r e c e i v e d by d e f e n d a n t
on September 6 , 1979, less t h a n t h r e e weeks a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d
i n j u r y and w e l l w i t h i n t h e t i m e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e .
The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by d e f e n d a n t t o s u p p o r t i t s
argument t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r a n i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y
i s r e l e v a n t o n l y t o p r o v e t h a t f o r a few d a y s a f t e r h e l e f t
work c l a i m a n t may n o t have b e l i e v e d h e had s u f f e r e d a n
industrial injury. C l a i m a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y and h i s August
31, 1979, r e p o r t i n d i c a t e h i s c o n f u s i o n . Claimant t e s t i f i e d
t h a t h i s back had c a u s e d him c o n s t a n t p a i n f o r more t h a n a
y e a r p r i o r t o August 21, 1979, and t h a t h e was accustomed t o
t a k i n g v a l i u m t o c o n t r o l t h e p a i n s o h e c o u l d go on w o r k i n g .
H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t when h e completed h i s s h i f t , h e i n t e n d e d
t o g o home, t a k e some more v a l i u m and go t o bed, a s h e had
before. The back p a i n , w h i l e more s e v e r e t h a n u s u a l , was
n o t new. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , c l a i m a n t was a s k e d :
"Q. Why, t h e n d i d n ' t you m e n t i o n i t t o somebody
b e f o r e g o i n g home?
"A. Because I w a s i n p a i n and c o u l d n ' t f i n d
anybody ... I f i g u r e d i f I go home and t a k e
some more valium I ' d be a l l r i g h t . . .
[I]£
I f e l t good and was t h e same way I was b e f o r e
i t happened, t h e n I wouldn ' t need t o do any-
t h i n g ; I ' d j u s t keep on."
Dr. Bohlman's r e p o r t and h i s d e p o s i t i o n s u p p o r t c l a i m a n t ' s
t e s t i m o n y t h a t h e had s u f f e r e d back p a i n f o r some t i m e
b e f o r e he s o u g h t D r . Bohlman's h e l p i n J u n e of 1979. This
evidence i s c o n s i s t e n t with D r . Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n , which
w a s u n c o n t r a d i c t e d by d e f e n d a n t , t h a t t h e l i f t i n g and bending
done by c l a i m a n t a t work would s t r e s s h i s back and w a s
l i k e l y t o c a u s e d e g e n e r a t i o n and a g g r a v a t i o n of a n e x i s t i n g
condition. Furthermore, D r . Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e s
t h e r e was no i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n c l a i m a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s t h a t he
had s u f f e r e d back p a i n f o r o v e r a y e a r , when h i s back s u d d e n l y
gave o u t a s he l i f t e d a heavy p i e c e of lumber. Dr. Shanks
s t a t e d t h a t " j u s t t h e l i f t i n g " would be enough t o c a u s e
sudden a g g r a v a t i o n and suddenly i n c r e a s e d back p a i n .
The m e d i c a l r e p o r t s and d e p o s i t i o n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e
p h y s i c i a n s who examined and t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t show beyond
d o u b t t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y was r e a l . H e s u f f e r e d from a
" p r o t r u d i n g d i s c " i n 1978, worked f o r o v e r a y e a r w i t h
i n c r e a s i n g d i s c o m f o r t , and, a f t e r August 21, 1979, was
d i a g n o s e d a s having a " h e r n i a t e d d i s c " which r e q u i r e d s u r g i c a l
fusion. He had n o t r e c o v e r e d t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he c o u l d
resume work a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, and w i l l p r o b a b l y n e v e r
be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o h i s o l d job, o r any o t h e r job r e q u i r i n g
a s i m i l a r amount of l i f t i n g and bending.
Defendant h a s n o t argued t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t s u f f e r
a h e r n i a t e d d i s c ; nor h a s d e f e n d a n t a t t e m p t e d t o p r o v e t h a t
c l a i m a n t ' s back c o n d i t i o n d i a g n o s e d i n 1978 was n o t a g g r a v a t e d
by h i s work. Both d e f e n d a n t and t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t a p p e a r t o have i g n o r e d t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t
c l a i m a n t ' s work c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e h e r n i a t e d d i s c .
O r d i n a r i l y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment
f o r t h a t of t h e Workers ' Compensation C o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g
t h e w e i g h t and c r e d i b i l i t y t o be g i v e n t e s t i m o n y . The
r e a s o n f o r t h i s i s t h a t t h i s C o u r t d e f e r s t o t h e lower
c o u r t ' s a s s e s s m e n t of t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s .
Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. However, when t h e c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e , i s e n t e r e d by d e p o s i t i o n , w e
have h e l d t h a t " t h i s C o u r t , a l t h o u g h s i t t i n g i n r e v i e w , i s
i n a s good a p o s i t i o n a s t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t o
judge t h e w e i g h t t o be g i v e n t o such r e c o r d t e s t i m o n y , a s
d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o r a l t e s t i m o n y , where t h e t r i a l c o u r t
a c t u a l l y o b s e r v e s t h e c h a r a c t e r and demeanor of t h e w i t n e s s
on t h e s t a n d . " H e r t v . J. J . Newberry Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont.
355, 359-360, 584 P.2d 656, 659.
I t i s e v i d e n t t o t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t p a i d l i t t l e heed t o t h e e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by c l a i m a n t ' s
physicians, except t o determine t h a t D r . Bohlman and D r .
Ingham had n o t n o t e d t h a t a n on t h e job i n j u r y had been
s u s t a i n e d by c l a i m a n t on August 2 1 , 1979. The f i n d i n g s of
f a c t q u o t e d above c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n r e p o r t s by
Dr. Lynch and D r . Shanks t h a t t h e i n j u r y was s u f f e r e d by
c l a i m a n t d u r i n g h i s work a t S t . Regis Paper Company. In
f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 1 6 , t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t
s t a t e d , "The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s
t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back p a i n p r e d a t e d h i s v i s i t t o D r .
Bohlman and s u b s e q u e n t h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and
was n o t a g g r a v a t e d by any e v e n t o c c u r r i n g on t h e job on that
d a t e " (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . That c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n of law
No. 2 s t a t e s , "The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t
s u f f e r a compensable i n j u r y a s d e f i n e d by 39-71-119 MCA,
n o 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 August 2 1 ,
1979 w h i l e employed by t h e S t . Regis Paper Company."
E v i d e n t l y , t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r
Dr. Shanks ' d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a
s e r i e s of minor traumas c o u l d l e a d t o a c o n d i t i o n such a s t h a t
s u f f e r e d by c l a i m a n t .
Defendant d i s m i s s e s D r . Shanks' t e s t i m o n y as " e q u i v o c a l , "
and t e n d i n g o n l y t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s work " ' c o u l d '
have been c a u s e d by a t r a u m a t i c e x p e r i e n c e a l o n g w i t h o t h e r
c a u s e s such a s d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c d i s e a s e . " W e find Dr.
Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n more c o n v i n c i n g . In addition to h i s
d e f i n i t e s t a t e m e n t q u o t e d above, t h a t d e g e n e r a t i v e d i s c
disease w a s not a disease, but a condition associated with
a c u t e trauma, o r " r e p e a t e d s m a l l traumas, " D r . Shanks t e s t i f i e d
t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n had, t o t h e b e s t o f h i s knowledge, been
p r e s e n t b e f o r e August 2 1 , 1979. A f t e r t h e t y p e of work done
by c l a i m a n t was d e s c r i b e d t o D r . Shanks, t h e f o l l o w i n g
d i a l o g u e took p l a c e :
"Q. NOW, w i t h t h a t t y p e of a [ j o b ] d e s c r i p -
t i o n , do you f e e l t h a t t h e r e would be any k i n d
of a g g r a v a t i o n ?
"A. T h e r e ' s p r o b a b l y g o i n g t o b e s t r e s s on
t h e lower back w i t h h a n d l i n g t h a t k i n d of
lumber. I t ' s d i f f i c u l t t o h a n d l e , and I
t h i n k you do have t o s t r e s s your back even
though i t ' s up h i g h and y o u ' r e n o t bending o v e r
s o much. But j u s t j a c k i n g i t around i s h a r d
t o do.
"Q. Okay. So, more t h a n l i k e l y , t h a t t y p e
of a c t i v i t y would c a u s e some a g g r a v a t i o n of
t h e lower back?
"A. I would t h i n k i t would, y e s . "
Counsel t h e n d e s c r i b e d t h e work r e q u i r e d t o f r e e a "jam-up,"
and a s k e d :
"Q. Now, would t h a t t y p e of a c t i v i t y a l s o
a g g r a v a t e h i s back?
"A. T h a t would b e even more s o .
"Q. Even more s o . Okay . . . Would a n i n d i v i d u a l
w i t h t h i s t y p e of back c o n d i t i o n which you have
d e s c r i b e d be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n j u r y t o h i s
lower back t h a n a p e r s o n w i t h o u t t h i s t y p e of
condition?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Now, would a p e r s o n w i t h t h i s t y p e o f c o n d i -
t i o n be s u s c e p t i b l e t o a sudden a g g r a v a t i o n of
the condition?
"A. W e l l , he c o u l d b e , depending on t h e t y p e of
t h i n g he was d o i n g a t t h e t i m e . I f he, say,
w a s up on t o p of t h e t a b l e t r y i n g t o s t r a i g h t e n
o u t a 2 x 1 2 , o r whatever t h a t had g o t t e n
t w i s t e d , and he b e n t o v e r and t r i e d t o p i c k t h a t
up, he m i g h t suddenly g e t i n c r e a s e d back p a i n ,
yes.
"Q. Okay. Now, going back t o m p r i o r example
y
of a d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s work, n o t on t o p of t h e
t a b l e b u t i n h i s normal o p e r a t i n g p o s i t i o n ,
l i f t i n g a heavy b o a r d , would t h a t t y p e of t h i n g
b e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a sudden a g g r a v a t i o n of t h e
back?
"A. Could b e , y e s . Same t h i n g ; j u s t t h e l i f t -
ing. "
I n S t r a n d b e r g v . Reber Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 1 7 3 , 175-177,
587 P.2d 1 8 , 1 9 , 2 0 , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t when i t i s proved
medically p o s s i b l e t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y
a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n , t h a t proof i s s u f f i c i e n t
t o e s t a b l i s h a compensable d i s a b i l i t y . Similarly, i n Viets
v . S w e e t g r a s s County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 337, 340, 583 P.2d
1070, 1072, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t e v i d e n c e t h a t an a c c i d e n t
a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n i s more r e l i a b l e t h a n
e v i d e n c e t h a t a n a c c i d e n t caused a d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n . In
Hoehne v . G r a n i t e Lumber Company ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. I
615 P.2d 863, 865, 37 St.Rep. 1307, 1310, a c a s e more n e a r l y
on p o i n t , we h e l d t h a t " a t a n g i b l e happening" under s e c t i o n
39-71-119, MCA, c o u l d be " n o t a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t . .
. but r a t h e r a c h a i n of a c c i d e n t s o r i n c i d e n t s , i . e . , the
s t a c k i n g of lumber on a d a i l y b a s i s . " W c i t e d approvingly
e
E r h a r t v. G r e a t Western Sugar Company ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 375,
380-381, 546 P.2d 1055, 1058, which s a i d :
"Not o n l y must c l a i m a n t show a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n ,
b u t t h e s t r a i n must r e s u l t from 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 . ..
A tangible
happening must be a p e r c e p t i b l e happening . . .
Some a c t i o n o r i n c i d e n t , o r c h a i n - a c t i o n s
7
of
o r i n c i d e n t s , must be shown which may - -r -
- -- be p e
c e i v e d -s-a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e - -e r e s u l t -
a of t h
- i n j u r y . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
ing
The l i n e s i n Hoehne, s u p r a , w e r e c l e a r l y drawn. The
s o l e d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t one p a r t y b e l i e v e d t h a t a g r a d u a l l y
developing, job-related i n j u r y n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o one s p e c i f i c
i n c i d e n t was a n " i n j u r y , " and t h e o t h e r b e l i e v e d i t was
not. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t i t was. The r e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n
from t h i s h o l d i n g i s t h a t , i f t h e r e i s s t r o n g enough e v i d e n c e
t h a t t h e gradually developing i n j u r y i s job-related, it is
an " i n j u r y " w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA,
and i s compensable, whether o r n o t c l a i m a n t s t a t e s t h a t
t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t .
I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t d i d
n o t b e l i e v e c l a i m a n t when h e s a i d he s u f f e r e d a s p e c i f i c
i n j u r y on August 2 1 , 1979. Evidently t h a t c o u r t d i d believe
c l a i m a n t ' s s u p e r v i s o r s who deposed t h a t c l a i m a n t had d e n i e d
t h e r e had been a n a c c i d e n t on t h a t d a t e . C l a i m a n t ' s d e n i a l of
an accident i s n o t necessarily i n c o n s i s t e n t with our conclusion
t h a t t h e c l e a r preponderance of e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s c l a i m a n t
s u f f e r e d a s e r i e s of s m a l l i n j u r i e s i n t h e y e a r b e f o r e h i s
breakdown, which i n j u r i e s were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i s work;
t h o s e i n j u r i e s a g g r a v a t e d a p r e - e x i s t i n g back c o n d i t i o n and
r e s u l t e d i n a herniated d i s c , t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , t h e subsequent
s p i n a l f u s i o n , and a c u r r e n t l y d i s a b l e d c o n d i t i o n , t h e e x t e n t
of which h a s n o t y e t been d e t e r m i n e d .
W e a r e m i n d f u l t h a t i n Hoehne, s u p r a , t h e r e was no
d i s p u t e a s t o t h e c a u s e of c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y , whereas h e r e ,
e v i d e n c e h a s been p r e s e n t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y o c c u r r e d
o f f t h e job, w h i l e he was moving a r e f r i g e r a t o r . Gary
Hansen, t h e o n l y p e r s o n who mentioned c l a i m a n t ' s moving a
r e f r i g e r a t o r a t t r i b u t e d t h e remark t o J e r r y McKay. McKay's
d e p o s i t i o n makes no r e f e r e n c e t o c a u s a l f a c t o r s ; i n d e e d ,
McKay c o u l d n o t r e c a l l such a d i s c u s s i o n . Claimant himself
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had moved n e i t h e r a r e f r i g e r a t o r nor any
o t h e r heavy o b j e c t . W do n o t f i n d Hansen's a l l e g a t i o n
e
r e l i a b l e ; i t i s u n c o r r o b o r a t e d h e a r s a y which, i f a n y t h i n g ,
i s c o n t r a d i c t e d by McKay. I t h a s l i t t l e f o r c e when c o n s i d e r e d
a g a i n s t t h e f a r more c o n v i n c i n g and c o n s i s t e n t e x p l a n a t i o n
p r e s e n t e d by c l a i m a n t and s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t e d by D r . Shanks'
and D r . Bohlman's d e p o s i t i o n s .
I n summary, t h o s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e Workers'
Compensation C o u r t q u o t e d above a r e d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d by
a preponderance o f t h e e v i d e n c e . F i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , a s i n t h e c a s e of D i s t r i c t
C o u r t s , may n o t s t a n d when t h e r e i s a c l e a r 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 a g a i n s t such f i n d i n g s o r c o n c l u s i o n s when
viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y .
H e r t v . J . J . Newberry Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 355, 359, 584
P.2d 656, 658-659.
W r e v e r s e and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e Workers' compensation
e
C o u r t f o r f i n d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n , and f o r a
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e compensation t o which c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d .
W e Concur:
Chief J u s t i c e
A
k 4