No. 81-153
IN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F M N A A
F OTN
1981
WILLIAM T. POLICH,
C l a i m a n t and R e s p o n d e n t ,
-vs-
WHALEN'S 0 . K . TIRE WAREHOUSE,
Employer,
and
GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE CO.,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: The Workers' Compensation C o u r t , The H o n o r a b l e
W i l l i a m E Hunt, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
.
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant :
G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn & R o b i n s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Dowling Law F i r m , H e l e n a , Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : J u n e 1 7 , 1981
Decided: SEP 2 5 1981
Filed: SEP 2 5 w-
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
The i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r a p p e a l s from a judgment i n t h e
Workers' Compensation C o u r t f i n d i n g t h e c l a i m a n t t o t a l l y and
permanently d i s a b l e d and c o n v e r t i n g h i s f u t u r e biweekly bene-
f i t s i n t o a lump sum payment. Appellant questions the s u f f i -
c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n s u p p o r t of a
lump sum payment and q u e s t i o n s whether c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o
a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . W a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e Workers'
e
Compensation C o u r t .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r
review:
1. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t 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 h o l d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t was en-
t i t l e d t o a lump sum payment of f u t u r e b e n e f i t s .
2. Whether c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .
C l a i m a n t William T . P o l i c h , a l o n g t i m e r e s i d e n t of B u t t e ,
was 62 y e a r s o l d i n 1980 when t h i s a c t i o n a r o s e . H e had worked
most of h i s l i f e a t u n s k i l l e d and p h y s i c a l l y demanding j o b s .
On J a n u a r y 2 9 , 1979, w h i l e employed by Whalen's O . K . Tire
Warehouse, P o l i c h s u f f e r e d a back i n j u r y which was a c c e p t e d a s
compensable by G l a c i e r G e n e r a l Assurance Company. Polich has
been r e c e i v i n g biweekly b e n e f i t payments s i n c e t h e d a t e of h i s
injury.
I n March of 1979, P o l i c h underwent a s u r g i c a l laminectomy
t o correct a herniated disc. D e s p i t e t h e s u r g e r y , he c o n t i n u e d
t o e x p e r i e n c e p a i n i n h i s lower back, b u t t o c k s and l e g s . The
o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n , who t r e a t e d P o l i c h , recommends t h a t P o l i c h
r e f r a i n from engaging i n any o c c u p a t i o n which would r e q u i r e
overhead work, bending, s t o o p i n g , c r a w l i n g , d r i v i n g o r l i f t i n g
more t h a n 20 pounds.
W i l l i a m P o l i c h owns h i s own house and c a r ; he h a s
c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t worth $13,000 and $3,000 i n a s a v i n g s
account. H e and h i s w i f e have a combined income of $1,887
p e r month. P o l i c h ' s w i f e works a s a r e c e p t i o n i s t a t t h e
Department of Radiology a t S t . James H o s p i t a l i n B u t t e . She
h a s b r i t t l e d i a b e t e s , m i g r a i n e headaches, and c i r c u l a t o r y
problems which make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r h e r t o c o n t i n u e working.
She was 6 2 y e a r s o l d i n 1980, i s e l i g i b l e f o r r e t i r e m e n t
b e n e f i t s and d e s i r e s t o r e t i r e .
On J u l y 7 , 1980, 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 t o g r a n t him a lump s m s e t t l e m e n t s o
u
t h a t he and h i s w i f e c o u l d s e l l t h e i r home and move s o u t h t o
a more h o s p i t a b l e c l i m a t e , r e l i e v i n g t h e m s e l v e s of t h e
s t r e s s and d i s c o m f o r t c a u s e d them by Montana's more s e v e r e
winters. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t P o l i c h e x p e r i e n c e d p a i n
when he a t t e m p t e d "even t h e s l i g h t e s t e x e r t i o n . " C l a i m a n t re-
q u e s t s t h e lump sum payment f o r h i s p r o j e c t e d move b e c a u s e
t h e c o s t of l i v i n g i s c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r i n Phoenix, where
t h e P o l i c h s p l a n t o l i v e , and b e c a u s e , due t o t h e d e p r e s s e d
economy i n B u t t e , c l a i m a n t c a n n o t e x p e c t t o r e c e i v e more
t h a n around $22,000 from t h e s a l e of h i s home i n B u t t e .
C l a i m a n t ' s e f f o r t s t o n e g o t i a t e a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t w i t h
G l a c i e r General had been u n s u c c e s s f u l .
A h e a r i n g was h e l d on October 20, 1980. 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 s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d d e t e r m i n e d ,
among o t h e r t h i n g s , (1) t h a t c l a i m a n t i s permanently and
t o t a l l y disabled; ( 2 ) t h a t c l a i m a n t i s a p r u d e n t man, a b l e
t o handle h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s ; ( 3 ) t h a t a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t
would be i n c l a i m a n t ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s ; (4) that i f the
p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t s e t t l e upon t h e amount of t h e lump sum
payment, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t would do s o a t a
later date; ( 5 ) t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t would
a l s o d e t e r m i n e a t a l a t e r d a t e whether a t t o r n e y f e e s would
b e awarded and t h e amount of t h o s e f e e s .
A p p e l l a n t , G l a c i e r G e n e r a l , h a s o b t a i n e d a s t a y of t h e
o r d e r of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ; c l a i m a n t w i l l
c o n t i n u e r e c e i v i n g biweekly b e n e f i t payments pending t h e
outcome of t h i s a p p e a l .
A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t c o n t e s t e d t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n o r i t s f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t i s permanently
and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-
116 ( 1 3 ) , MCA.
The f i r s t i s s u e , r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e and s u f f i c i e n c y
of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n s u p p o r t of a c o n v e r s i o n of
f u t u r e biweekly b e n e f i t s t o a lump sum payment, h a s been
a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t i n many c a s e s .
S t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e c o n v e r s i o n i n t o a lump sum
o f biweekly payments p r o v i d e d f o r under t h e Workmen's
Compensation Act i s found i n s e c t i o n 92-715 R.C.M., 1947,
now s e c t i o n 39-71-741, MCA. I n 1979, s e c t i o n 39-71-741,
MCA, was amended t o g i v e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h e
a u t h o r i t y t o s e t t l e d i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g lump s m s e t t l e m e n t s
u
where a n i n s u r e r and a c l a i m a n t d i s a g r e e d . Willoughby v .
A r t h u r G. McKee & Co. (1980), -Mont.- , 609 P.2d 700,
I n a r e c e n t c a s e , U t i c k v. U t i c k ( 1 9 7 9 ) , -Mont. - I
593 P.2d 739, 741, 36 St.Rep. 799, 801-802, t h i s Court
d i s c u s s e d t h e broad p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g lump sum payments:
"The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t payments under t h e
Workmen's Compensation Act a r e p e r i o d i c . Lump
sum s e t t l e m e n t s a r e a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l
r u l e . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] T h i s d o e s n o t mean,
however, t h a t lump sum awards a r e looked on
with disfavor. They should be awarded w i t h o u t
h e s i t a n c y 'where t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t i e s
demand i t . ' [ L a u k a i t i s v. S i s t e r s of C h a r i t y of
Leavenworth ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 135 Jlont. 469, 474, 342 P.2d
752, 755.1 Each c a s e f o r a lump sum payment s t a n d s
o r f a l l s on i t s own m e r i t s . Codling v . Aztec W e l l
S e r v i c i n g Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 89 N.M. 213, 549 P.2d 628."
I n o t h e r c a s e s where t h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e
Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o award o r deny a
lump sum s e t t l e m e n t , we have s t a t e d t h a t t h a t d e c i s i o n w i l l
n o t be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a n
a p p a r e n t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . U t i c k v . U t i c k , s u p r a ; Kent
v . S i e v e r t ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 79, 489 P.2d 104. The f i n d i n g s
o f t h e lower t r i b u n a l o r board w i l l be presumed c o r r e c t and
a f f i r m e d i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Willoughby,
s u p r a , 609 P.2d a t 702, 37 St.Rep. a t 623, and c a s e s t h e r e c i t e d .
The Workers' Compensation C o u r t o r board i s "more
favorably s i t u a t e d than [ t h i s Court] t o f a m i l i a r i z e i t s e l f
with t h e circumstances surrounding t h e a p p l i c a n t , t o consider
h i s needs, and t h e r e s u l t s which p r o b a b l y w i l l f o l l o w a c t i o n
g r a n t i n g o r denying t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . . ." Willouqhby, s u p r a ,
609 P.2d a t 704, 37 St.Rep. a t 625, (citation omitted).
A p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e Workers'
Compensation C o u r t was t o o s c a n t y t o s u p p o r t i t s c o n c l u s i o n
t h a t a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t w i l l b e s t s e r v e t h e c l a i m a n t ' s
interests. Appellant claims a contradiction e x i s t s 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 wants t o move t o a warm c l i m a t e
a l t h o u g h c l a i m a n t h a s n o t r e a l l y checked o u t t h e c o s t of l i v i n g
i n Phoenix o t h e r t h a n t o f i n d t h a t i t would c o s t more t h a n l i v i n g
i n B u t t e , s o t h a t t h e move might a c t u a l l y be d e t r i m e n t a l t o
c l a i m a n t and h i s w i f e . W e do n o t e t h a t more d e t a i l e d f a c t s
r e g a r d i n g t h e a n t i c i p a t e d c o s t s and e x p e n s e s s h o u l d have been
p r e s e n t e d by c l a i m a n t . The e v i d e n c e d i d show t h a t c l a i m a n t
h a s been warned by h i s p h y s i c i a n t o a v o i d s t o o p i n g , bending,
c r a w l i n g , heavy l i f t i n g and overhead work; t h e s l i g h t e s t
p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n i s p a i n f u l t o him. H i s w i f e i s ill w i t h
d i a b e t e s , m i g r a i n e headaches and i m p a i r e d c i r c u l a t i o n . The
c l a i m a n t h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he and h i s w i f e keep m o s t l y t o
t h e m s e l v e s ; t h e y have few c l o s e f r i e n d s l e f t i n t h e a r e a .
While l i t t l e e v i d e n c e was s u b m i t t e d i n comparing B u t t e and
Phoenix w i n t e r l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , t h e f a c t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o
show t h a t l i f e away from below z e r o w e a t h e r , heavy s n o w f a l l
and r u t t e d i c y r o a d s and s t r e e t s would be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s
o f t h i s ill and a g i n g c o u p l e .
T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y a r e
u s u a l l y b e s t s e r v e d by having d i s a b i l i t y payments made
periodically. "The p u r p o s e of [ t h e p e r i o d i c payment] method
i s t o p r e c l u d e any p o s s i b i l i t y of a n i m p r u d e n t employee o r
d e p e n d e n t w a s t i n g t h e means f o r s u p p o r t and t h e r e b y becoming
a burden upon s o c i e t y . [Citation omitted, 1 " Laukaitis, supra,
135 Mont. a t 472, 342 P.2d a t 754. But t h e Workers' Compensation
C o u r t h a s found " t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t i s a p r u d e n t man, a b l e t o
handle h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s . . ." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s
t h a t P o l i c h i s s o l v e n t , and t h a t h i s w i f e i s e l i g i b l e f o r
retirement benefits. I t i s o n l y t h e a n t i c i p a t e d e x p e n s e of
t h e move t o Phoenix t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o h i s r e q u e s t f o r a
lump sum payment. I t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s t y p e of human need
and f i n a n c i a l burden t h a t s e c t i o n 39-71-741, MCA i s d e s i g n e d
t o cover. Without a lump sum payment of b e n e f i t s , c l a i m a n t
and h i s w i f e w i l l be u n a b l e t o make a move t h a t i s c l e a r l y
i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r a g e and d e t e r i o r a t e d
health. I n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , once s e t t l e d i n Phoenix t h e
P o l i c h s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o l i v e , a s t h e y have i n B u t t e , q u i e t l y
and w i t h i n t h e i r means.
W e f i n d 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 upon which t h e
Workers' Compensation C o u r t c o u l d b a s e i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a
lump sum s e t t l e m e n t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c l a i m a n t .
There i s no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s judgment t h a t , i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 39-71-741, MCA, P o l i c h i s e n t i t l e d
t o a conversion of h i s f u t u r e biweekly b e n e f i t payments
i n t o a lump s u m payment.
The second i s s u e r a i s e d i s whether t h e c l a i m a n t i s
e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Appellant contends
a t h a t , s i n c e i t h a s a t a l l t i m e s been complying w i t h t h e
Workers' Compensation A c t , c l a i m a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o
r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .
Compliance o r noncompliance w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation
Act i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h i s i s s u e . The award of a t t o r n e y
f e e s and c o s t s i n t h i s c a s e i s governed by s e c t i o n 39-71-
612, MCA, which s t a t e s :
" ( 1 ) I f a n employer o r i n s u r e r pays o r t e n d e r s
payment of compensation under c h a p t e r 71 o r 72
of t h i s t i t l e , b u t c o n t r o v e r s y r e l a t e s t o t h e
amount of compensation due and t h e s e t t l e m e n t o r
award i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e amount p a i d o r t e n d e r e d
by t h e employer o r i n s u r e r , a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s
f e e a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d i v i s i o n o r t h e w o r k e r s '
compensation judge i f t h e c a s e h a s gone t o a h e a r -
i n g based s o l e l y upon t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e
amount s e t t l e d f o r o r awarded and t h e amount t e n d e r e d
o r p a i d , may be awarded i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount f o r
compensation. ( 2 ) When a n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e i s awarded
a g a i n s t a n employer o r i n s u r e r under t h i s s e c t i o n
t h e r e may be f u r t h e r a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e employer
o r i n s u r e r r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s , f e e s , and m i l e a g e f o r
n e c e s s a r y w i t n e s s e s a t t e n d i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e
claimant's behalf. Both t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e w i t -
n e s s and t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e f e e s must be
approved by t h e d i v i s i o n o r t h e w o r k e r s ' compensa-
t i o n judge. "
The c l a i m a n t h a s p r e v a i l e d i n a h e a r i n g where t h e s o l e
c o n t r o v e r s y was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e amount awarded
and t h e amount t e n d e r e d . This m e e t s the s t a t u t o r y standard.
This Court f i n d s t h a t t h e claimant i s e n t i t l e d t o reasonable
a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-
612, MCA.
W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation
Court. I t i s t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e lower c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e
t h e amount of awards and f e e s , a s i t i s t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s
C o u r t t o r e v i e w t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e lower c o u r t s . There-
f o r e , w e remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t
f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e amount of t h e lump sum payment
a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s 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
L
(
a h e ,
Justices
~jg~h,