NO. 81-53
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
GENE WIGHT,
Claimant and Respondent,
-vs-
HUGHES LIVESTOCK CO., INC., Employer,
and
MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable William
E. Hunt, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent:
R. V. Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 2, 1981
'
QCT OJUI~
^ f
Filed:
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
T h i s is a n a p p e a l by Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual
I n s u r a n c e Company ( F a r m B u r e a u ) f r o m a judgment of t h e W o r k e r s 1
Compensation C o u r t . The c l a i m a n t , Gene W i g h t , was found t o be
t o t a l l y and p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d and was awarded c o m p e n s a t i o n
b e n e f i t s , c o s t s , and a t t o r n e y f e e s . I n a d d i t i o n , a 20% s t a t u t o r y
p e n a l t y was a s s e s s e d b y t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t a g a i n s t
Farm B u r e a u .
On F e b r u a r y 1 5 1 9 7 7 , w h i l e employed a s a r a n c h hand f o r
Hughes L i v e s t o c k Company, I n c . , Wight s u f f e r e d compensable
i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t of an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . H e was p i n n e d
b e t w e e n t h e s t e e r i n g w h e e l of t h e t r a c t o r he was d r i v i n g and a n
u p l i f t e d front-end l o a d e r of a n o t h e r t r a c t o r . H e was h o s p i t a -
l i z e d e i g h t days f o r h i s i n j u r i e s . A f t e r h i s r e l e a s e from t h e
h o s p i t a l , he r e t u r n e d t o t h e Hughes r a n c h and resumed h i s d u t i e s
a s a r a n c h hand.
S h o r t l y a£ t e r r e t u r n i n g to t h e r a n c h , Wight s u b m i t t e d a
t i m e l y c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n t o Farm B u r e a u . On t h e claim form
h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s to h i s r i b s and c h e s t .
Farm B u r e a u p a i d W i g h t ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s and l o s t wages.
W i g h t made no f u r t h e r c l a i m f o r b e n e f i t s u n t i l 1 9 7 9 a t
w h i c h t i m e he c l a i m e d b e n e f i t s f o r b a c k i n j u r i e s a l l e g e d l y s u f -
f e r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t . Farm B u r e a u r e f u s e d t o
p a y c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s and Wight f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e
Workers1 Compensation C o u r t . A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d and Wight was
f o u n d t o be t o t a l l y and p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d a s a r e s u l t of
i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t .
Farm B u r e a u r a i s e s f i v e i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Whether a t i m e l y n o t i c e of i n j u r i e s was f i l e d a s is
r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 39-71-603 MCA.
2. Whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o sup-
p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t 1s p r e - e x i s t i n g s p i n a l d i s e a s e 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 t h e a c c i d e n t of February 1 5 , 1977.
3. W h e t h e r t h e W o r k e r s 1 C o m p e n s a t i o n Judge a b u s e d h i s
d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t a l l o w i n g Farm B u r e a u to i n t r o d u c e i n e v i d e n c e
t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f D r . James T. L o v i t t .
4. Whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Court e r r e d i n
i m p o s i n g a 20% p e n a l t y i n t h i s case.
5. Whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Court e r r e d i n
awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e claimant.
I n r e g a r d t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , Farm B u r e a u c o n t e n d s t h a t
W i g h t f a i l e d t o g i v e t i m e l y n o t i c e o f t h e b a c k i n j u r i e s he a l l e -
g e d l y s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e 1 9 7 7 i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t , and
t h a t c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e Workers Compensation Court lacked j u r i s -
d i c t i o n t o award him b e n e f i t s .
I t i s u n c o n t e s t e d t h a t Wight f i l e d a t i m e l y claim f o r com-
p e n s a t i o n f o r i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d as a r e s u l t of t h e 1 9 7 7
accident. On t h e claim f o r m , h o w e v e r , he i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e
p a r t s . o f h i s body which were i n j u r e d were h i s r i b s and h i s c h e s t .
H e d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y i n d i c a t e on t h a t form t h a t h i s b a c k had
been i n j u r e d also.
Farm B u r e a u a r g u e s t h a t Wight f a i l e d to g i v e n o t i c e of t h e
" n a t u r e o f h i s i n j u r y " , and t h e r e f o r e f a i l e d t o meet t h e s t a t u -
t o r y n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t o f sect i o n 39-71-603 , MCA, which p r o v i -
d e s as f o l l o w s :
"No claim t o r e c o v e r b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e W o r k e r s 1
Compensation A c t , f o r i n j u r i e s n o t r e s u l t i n g i n
d e a t h , may be c o n s i d e r e d c o m p e n s a b l e u n l e s s ,
w i t h i n 60 d a y s a f t e r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e acci-
d e n t which is c l a i m e d t o h a v e c a u s e d t h e i n j u r y ,
n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e w h e r e t h e a c c i d e n t
o c c u r r e d and t h e n a t u r e - -e i n j u r y is g i v e n
of th
t o t h e e m p l o y e r or t h e e m p l o y e r ' s i n s u r e r by t h e
i n j u r e d e m p l o y e e or someone on t h e e m p l o y e e ' s
b e h a l f . A c t u a l knowledge o f t h e a c c i d e n t and
i n j u r y on t h e p a r t o f t h e e m p l o y e r o r t h e
e m p l o y e r 1s m a n a g i n g a g e n t or s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n
c h a r g e of t h e work upon which t h e i n j u r e d
employee w a s engaged a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y
is equivalent t o n o t i c e ." ( Emphasis added. )
I t is Farm B u r e a u ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t n o t i c e o f o n e s p e c i f i c
i n j u r y is i n s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of a n o t h e r s p e c i f i c i n j u r y c a u s e d
b y t h e same a c c i d e n t . I t c o n t e n d s t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e c h e s t and
r i b i n j u r i e s was i n s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e o f a n y b a c k i n j u r i e s t h a t
W i g h t may h a v e s u f f e r e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e same a c c i d e n t . Farm
B u r e a u a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e Wight d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y
n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n , t h e Workers' Compensation Court lacked j u r i s -
d i c t i o n t o make a n award i n t h i s case.
W disagree.
e T h e r e is no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a n e m p l o y e e
must g i v e n o t i c e of each s e p a r a t e i n j u r y received i n an
i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e , as h e r e , c l a i m a n t w a s
f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e , having terminated h i s schooling i n t h e
t h i r d grade. Wight was i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e
r e q u i r e m e n t when he n o t i f i e d t h e i n s u r e r o f h i s a c c i d e n t and t h e
f a c t t h a t h e had b e e n i n j u r e d .
"The p u r p o s e o f t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t . . . is to enable
t h e e m p l o y e r t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f by p r o m p t i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e
c l a i m e d a c c i d e n t and p r o m p t t r e a t m e n t o f t h e i n j u r y i n v o l v e d w i t h
a v i e w t o w a r d m i n i m i z i n g i t s e f f e c t s by p r o p e r m e d i c a l c a r e . "
B e n d e r v. Roundup Mining Company ( 1 9 6 0 ) 1 3 8 Mont. 3 0 6 , 3 1 3 , 3 5 6
P.2d 4 6 9 , 473. The p u r p o s e u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r e a r l y
r e p o r t i n g o f i n j u r i e s was f u l f i l l e d i n t h i s case. The claim form
s u b m i t t e d b y Wight p r o v i d e d t h e i n s u r e r w i t h a l l o f t h e i n f o r -
m a t i o n it n e e d e d t o e n a b l e i t t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a c c i d e n t and
d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t of Wight' s i n j u r i e s .
W e a g r e e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t made by t h e Supreme
J u d i c i a l C o u r t o f Maine:
" [ I ]t i s n e c e s s a r y t o remember t h a t when a n
a c c i d e n t h a s o c c u r r e d , t h e e m p l o y e e who makes
h i s r e p o r t o f w h a t seems t o be a r e l a t i v e l y
m i n o r i n j u r y u s u a l l y d o e s so w i t h o u t g u i d a n c e o f
counsel. I n c o m p l e t e good f a i t h , t h r o u g h l a c k
of e d u c a t i o n or s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , he may d e s c r i b e
h i s ' i n j u r y ' i n less t h a n f u l l d e t a i l , n o t
r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n may l a t e r
become c r u c i a l f o r o b t a i n i n g b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e
Act. ... Employees who are i n j u r e d i n a c c i -
d e n t s may n o t s p e c i f y e v e r y r e s u l t i n g p a i n or
d i s c o m f o r t t h e y may s u f f e r a t t h e t i m e o f
r e p o r t i n g , having a reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t
most o f t h o s e p a i n s and d i s c o m f o r t s w i l l s o o n
disappear. F u r t h e r m o r e , a n e m p l o y e e who h a s
g i v e n i n good f a i t h a n a d e q u a t e r e p o r t o f t h e
t i m e , p l a c e , c a u s e , and o b v i o u s l y i n j u r i o u s con-
s e q u e n c e s o f a n a c c i d e n t may n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e
need t o supplement h i s i n i t i a l r e p o r t a t a l a t e r
d a t e i f a condition thought unimportant a t the
t i m e o f r e p o r t i n g e v e n t u a l l y p r o v e s to be
serious." C l a r k v . D e C o s t e r Egg Farms (Me.
1 9 8 0 ) 1 4 2 1 A.2d 939 1 942-943.
W e h o l d t h a t Wight d i d comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e
r e q u i r e m e n t o f s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA, and t h a t t h e W o r k e r s '
C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t d i d h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award t h e c l a i m a n t
benefits.
The s e c o n d i s s u e f o r r e v i e w is t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i -
d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t gs p r e - e x i s t i n g spinal
d i s e a s e 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 h i s a c c i d e n t of F e b r u a r y
1 5 , 1977. W e n o t e t h a t t h e Workers1 Compensation Court d i d n o t
s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p r e s s l y make s u c h a f i n d i n g . However, s u c h
f i n d i n g is n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l i e d by 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 was t o t a l l y and p e r m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f com-
p e n s a b l e i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d i n h i s a c c i d e n t o f F e b r u a r y 1 5 ,
1 9 7 7 , b e c a u s e t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i n t h a t a c c i d e n t were h i s
o n l y compensable i n j u r i e s .
C l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d he r e c e i v e d a b a c k i n j u r y i n t h a t acci-
d e n t w h i c h h a s d i s a b l e d him and he p r o d u c e d t h e s h i r t he was
w e a r i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t showing t h a t t i n e s from t h e
front-end l o a d e r o f t h e t r a c t o r had p i e r c e d and t o r n a h o l e i n
it. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e n u r s e ' s n o t e s and h o s p i t a l c h a r t s indicated
t h a t c l a i m a n t had c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t h i s b a c k c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g h i s
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n following the accident. Although D r . Lefever ,
c l a i m a n t gs a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , d e p o s e d t h a t n o t h i n g i n t h e
c o u r s e of h i s t r e a t m e n t of c l a i m a n t r e v e a l e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
a n i n j u r y t o t h e l u m b a r s p i n e n o r was t h e r e a n y s u g g e s t i o n o f a n
a g g r a v a t i o n o f c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l a b n o r m a l i t y and D r . Avery
d e p o s e d t h a t t h e p r o g r e s s i o n of c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l d i s e a s e had
n o t h i n g to do with t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t , t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s s i m p l y
produced a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence. W e have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d :
" I f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s
a r e b a s e d on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e ... this
C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on r e v i e w is con£ i n e d to d e t e r -
m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o n
t h e whole r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g s u c h f i n d i n g s . "
Harmon v. D e a c o n e s s H o s p i t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) ,
, 6 2 3 P.2d 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 4 , 38 S t . R e p . 6 5 , 67-68,
Mont .
and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
Such is t h e case h e r e . W h o l d t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e sup-
e
p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g o f t h e Workers' Compensation Court.
The n e x t i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e W o r k e r s 1 C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t
a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w Farm B u r e a u to i n t r o -
d u c e i n e v i d e n c e t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y o f D r . James T.
~ o v i t t . Dr. L o v i t t was n o t l i s t e d a s a w i t n e s s i n t h e p r e t r i a l
o r d e r and no n o t i c e was g i v e n u n t i l s e v e r a l m o n t h s a f t e r t h e
h e a r i n g t h a t Farm B u r e a u d e s i r e d t o d e p o s e him. Dr. L o v i t t had
n e v e r s e e n c l a i m a n t n o r examined him. The W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n
J u d g e h a s b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r to a l l o w s u c h
d e p o s i t i o n t o be t a k e n p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e , a s h e r e , t h e r e q u e s t
i s u n t i m e l y and i n v i o l a t i o n o f R u l e 2 . 5 2 . 2 1 1 o f t h e W o r k e r s 1
Compensation Court.
The f o u r t h i s s u e is w h e t h e r t h e W o r k e r s 1 C o m p e n s a t i o n
C o u r t e r r e d i n i m p o s i n g s t a t u t o r y p e n a l t i e s i n t h i s case. The
W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t is empowered to i n c r e a s e a n award b y
20% i f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s e c t i o n 39-71-2907, MCA, are m e t .
S e c t i o n 39-71-2907, MCA, provides :
"When payment o f c o m p e n s a t i o n h a s b e e n u n r e a s o -
-
n a b l y d e l a y e d or r e f u s e d by an i n s u r e r , e i t h e r
p r i o r or s u b s e q u e n t to t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n o r d e r
b y t h e workers ' compensation judge g r a n t i n g a
c l a i m a n t c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , t h e f u l l amount
o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s d u e a c l a i m a n t , be-
t w e e n t h e time c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s were d e l a y e d
o r r e f u s e d and t h e d a t e of t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a
c l a i m a n t c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s , may be i n c r e a s e d
b y t h e w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n j u d g e by 2 0 % . The
q u e s t i o n of unreasonable d e l a y o r r e f u s a l s h a l l
b e determined by t h e workers' compensation
j u d g e , and s u c h a f i n d i n g c o n s t i t u t e s good c a u s e
t o r e s c i n d , a l t e r , o r amend a n y o r d e r , d e c i s i o n ,
o r award p r e v i o u s l y made i n t h e c a u s e f o r t h e
p u r p o s e of making t h e i n c r e a s e p r o v i d e d h e r e i n
( Emphasis added. )
."
W h e t h e r a n a c t i o n is " u n r e a s o n a b l e " u n d e r t h i s s t a t u t e i s
a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t which is s u b j e c t o n a p p e a l to t h e l i m i t e d
review of the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence test. S m i t h v. P i e r c e p a c k i n g
Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 2 6 7 , 5 8 1 P.2d 8 3 4 . I f t h e r e is 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 a f i n d i n g of " u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s " , t h i s Court
cannot overturn the finding .
A f t e r c a r e f u l l y reviewing t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d i n t h i s case,
w e f a i l t o f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g of
t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t t h a t Farm B u r e a u u n r e a s o n a b l y
delayed o r refused compensation b e n e f i t s . When t h e 1 9 7 7 c l a i m
f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n was s u b m i t t e d , Farm B u r e a u p r o m p t l y p a i d
c l a i m a n t ' s m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s and l o s t wages. Farm B u r e a u d i s c o n -
t i n u e d p a y m e n t s when c l a i m a n t r e t u r n e d t o work.
N o t h i n g f u r t h e r o c c u r r e d u n t i l 1 9 7 9 when c l a i m a n t con-
t e n d e d f o r t h e f i r s t time t h a t he had become p e r m a n e n t l y and
t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e 1 9 7 7 a c c i d e n t . Farm B u r e a u
r e f used to honor t h i s c l a i m c o n t e n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y
d i d n o t r e s u l t from t h e 1 9 7 7 a c c i d e n t and w e n t t o h e a r i n g o n t h e
issue. T h e r e was a bona f i d e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r a n y c a u s a l c o n n e c -
t i o n b e t w e e n t h e 1 9 7 7 a c c i d e n t and c l a i m a n t ' s p r e s e n t d i s a b i l i t y .
Dr. L e f e v e r , c l a i m a n t ' s a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , found n o t h i n g i n h i s
c o u r s e o f t r e a t m e n t o f c l a i m a n t t h a t r e v e a l e d a p o s s i b i l i t y of a n
i n j u r y to c l a i m a n t ' s lumbar s p i n e i n t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t n o r any
s u g g e s t i o n of an a g g r a v a t i o n of c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l a b n o r m a l i t y as
a r e s u l t of t h a t a c c i d e n t . Dr. Avery s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r o g r e s s i o n
o f c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l d i s e a s e had n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t h e 1 9 7 7
a c c i d e n t a l t h o u g h t h e a c c i d e n t d i d make c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l con-
dition clinically identifiable. Farm B u r e a u s h o u l d n o t be s u b -
j e c t e d to t h e s t a t u t o r y 20% p e n a l t y f o r u n r e a s o n a b l y r e f u s i n g o r
d e l a y i n g payment o f b e n e f i t s u n t i l t h e f a c t u a l d i s p u t e w a s
resolved. T h i s f i n d i n g and award m u s t be s e t a s i d e .
The l a s t i s s u e r a i s e d b y Farm B u r e a u is w h e t h e r t h e award
o f a t t o r n e y f e e s was p r o p e r i n t h i s case. The W o r k e r s '
C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t was e n t i t l e d to
r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from Farm B u r e a u p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n
39-71-611, MCA, which p r o v i d e s :
" I n t h e e v e n t an i n s u r e r d e n i e s l i a b i l i t y f o r a c l a i m f o r
c o m p e n s a t i o n or t e r m i n a t e s c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s and t h e
c l a i m i s l a t e r a d j u d g e d c o m p e n s a b l e by t h e w o r k e r s v compen-
s a t i o n j u d g e o r on a p p e a l , t h e i n s u r e r s h a l l pay r e a s o n -
a b l e c o s t s and a t t o r n e y s v f e e s as e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e
workers compensation judge."
I n t h i s c a s e Farm B u r e a u d i d d e n y l i a b i l i t y f o r a claim f o r com-
p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s which was l a t e r ad j udged c o m p e n s a b l e ;
t h e r e f o r e , t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s was p r o p e r .
The W o r k e r s v C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t v s j u d g m e n t is m o d i f i e d to
e x c l u d e t h e award o f t h e 20% i n c r e a s e i n b e n e f i t s . The j u d g m e n t
a s m o d i f i e d is a f f i r m e d .
...................................
Chief J u s t i c e
W e concur: