NO. 8 2 - 3 8 2
IN THE SUPREME COUXT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1983
KENNETH M. NIELSEN,
Claimant and Appellant,
-vs-
BEAVER POND, INC., Employer,
and
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Ijonorable Timothy
Reardon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
R. P. Ryan, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Earl J. Hanson, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 10, 1983
Decided: April 7, 1983
Filed: .a p ~- 1983
---
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s case a r i s e s o u t of t h e i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r s t e r m i n a t i o n of
t h e c l a i m a n t s temporary total d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s . T h e s e bene-
f i t s stemmed f r o m two i n d u s t r i a l accidents t h a t took place in
1 9 7 5 and 1976 w h i l e t h e c l a i m a n t was a n e m p l o y e e of a Bozeman
s p o r t i n g goods store. When t h e c a r r i e r t e r m i n a t e d t h e t e m p o r a r y
total disability benefits, it placed the c l a i m a n t on permanent
partial disability benefits. A f t e r a hearing b e f o r e Judge Hunt,
who was t h e r e a f t e r r e p l a c e d as Workers Compensation J u d g e , the
t e m p o r a r y t o t a l b e n e f i t s were t e m p o r a r i l y r e i n s t a t e d . However,
J u d g e Hunt w a s r e p l a c e d by t h e p r e s e n t J u d g e b e f o r e a f i n a l o r d e r
was e n t e r e d . To a v o i d a d d i t i o n a l t i m e and e x p e n s e , t h e p a r t i e s ,
r a t h e r t h a n c o n d u c t a new t r i a l , stipulated t h a t t h e new J u d g e
decide the case on the record. After the stipulation, the
Workerst Compensation Court r e f u s e d t o allow new e v i d e n c e to be
a d d e d and r u l e d i n f a v o r o f t h e c a r r i e r .
C l a i m a n t was employed b y t h e B e a v e r P o n d , a s p o r t i n g goods
s t o r e i n Bozeman. B e a v e r Pond was e n r o l l e d u n d e r P l a n 2 o f the
Montana W o r k e r s C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t , w i t h F i r e m a n ' s Fund I n s u r a n c e
Company as t h e i r c a r r i e r .
On O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 7 5 , a c u s t o m e r b r o u g h t a .270 c a l i b e r r i f l e
into the Beaver Pond for repairs. While one of the store
employees was handling the rifle, in the shop area, it
discharged. The b u l l e t s t r u c k t h e c o n c r e t e f l o o r and s h a t t e r e d
into f r a g m e n t s of various sizes. These fragments, along with
other debris, s e t i n m o t i o n by t h e b u l l e t ' s impact, struck the
claimant in the right pelvic region, groin, penis, right thigh
and c h e s t .
C l a i m a n t u n d e r w e n t s e v e r a l s u r g e r i e s to remove f r a g m e n t s i n
a n a t t e m p t to a l l e v i a t e p a i n . Although t h e s e o p e r a t i o n s d i d n o t
completely eliminate the pain, the claimant returned t o work.
On S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1976, the claimant received a lower b a c k
i n j u r y by f a l l i n g w h i l e h e and a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e were moving a
g r i n d i n g machine i n t h e shop a r e a .
A t t h e t i m e of t h e s e c o n d i n j u r y , he w a s making a p p r o x i m a t e l y
$ 1 2 0 p e r week. H e r e c e i v e d t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y of $ 8 0 p e r
week f r o m S e p t e m b e r 2 9 , 1 9 7 6 , u n t i l November 2 8 , 1976, a t which
t i m e he was r e l e a s e d and r e t u r n e d to work. C l a i m a n t t h e n worked
until April 25, 1977. He had a problem working d u r i n g that
period due to p a i n from both injuries. On April 25, h e was
r e s t o r e d t o t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , and r e c e i v e d $80
p e r week u n t i l November 2 5 , 1 9 7 9 , when t h e c a r r i e r r e d u c e d the
c l a i m a n t ' s b e n e f i t s to p e r m a n e n t p a r t i a l b e n e f i t s of $73.50 p e r
week.
Based on t h e c a r r i e r ' s action, the claimant petitioned the
Workers Compensation C o u r t t o have h i s b e n e f i t s r e s t o r e d a t t h e
temporary total level. The carrier counter-claimed for final
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e case. The Workers Compensation C o u r t found
t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t was p e r m a n e n t l y p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d and r e f u s e d
a r e q u e s t f o r rehearing o r t o reopen t h e c a s e . From t h e s e d e c i -
sions, claimant appeals.
Two i s s u e s h a v e b e e n r a i s e d o n a p p e a l .
1. W h e t h e r it was e r r o r f o r t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation Court
t o f i n d t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s e n t i t l e m e n t to t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a -
bility benefits terminated on or before October 10, 1979?
2. W h e t h e r it was error f o r t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation Court
t o r e f u s e t o g r a n t a r e h e a r i n g or t o r e o p e n t h e c a s e so t h a t new
evidence concerning the claimant's disability could be
considered?
In dealing with the f i r s t i s s u e of whether the claimant's
t e m p o r a r y t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s s h o u l d have been t e r m i n a t e d ,
w e m u s t l o o k to 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 .
" ' O u r f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n of t h e
Workers C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t i s to d e t e r m i n e
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 t o sup-
p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h a t
court. W c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r
e
t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s to t h e w e i g h t o f
e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . Where t h e r e is
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support the findings
o f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , t h i s Court
cannot overturn the decision. S t e f f e s v. 9 3
Leasing Co., Inc. (U.S.F.&G.) ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177
Mont. 8 3 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 580 P.2d 4 4 0 , 4 5 2 . ' 619
P.2d a t 1 6 8 . " Novagk v . Montgomery Ward and
Co. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 638 P.2d 3 9 0 ,
3 9 2 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 8 0 3 V i e t s v. S w e e t Grass
C o u n t y ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 3 3 7 , 583 P.2d 1 0 7 0 ,
1071, 1072.
Although the claimant tried to supplement the record with
m a t e r i a l t h a t may . h a v e c h a n g e d t h e o u t c o m e , w e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e
Workers Compensation C o u r t a c t e d p r o p e r l y i n r e f using it. There
was no c h a n c e f o r t h e c a r r i e r to c r o s s - e x a m i n e t h e d o c t o r on t h e
proposed new reports and it was not part of the stipulated
e
record. I n o u r c a s e o f H x r t v. J. J. Newberry C o . (1978), 179
Mont. 160, 587 P.2d 11, w e made it clear t h a t statements in
m e d i c a l r e p o r t s n o t s t i p u l a t e d to o r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e may
n o t be c o n s i d e r 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 i n r e n d e r i n g
its decision. The r e a s o n t h a t t h e s e d o c u m e n t s m u s t be i n evi-
d e n c e is t h a t d o c u m e n t s w h i c h a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l n o t i c e
m u s t be p u t i n t o e v i d e n c e as t h i s is t h e o n l y method by which t h e
opposing parties can make their objections known to the
C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t , and p r e s e r v e t h e i r g r o u n d s f o r a p p e a l . ~Frt
v. J . J . Newberry C o . , supra.
B a s e d o n t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , as it was s t i p u l a t e d t o
b y t h e p a r t i e s , w e b e l i e v e t h a t 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 to
s u p p o r t t h e Workers Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t :
"The p r e p o n d e r a n c e of m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e c l e a r l y
i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t r e a c h e d maximum
h e a l i n g and c e a s e d t o q u a l i f y f o r t e m p o r a r y
t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s o n or b e f o r e O c t o b e r
1 0 , 1979."
None o f the doctor's reports i n the record i n d i c a t e r e c e n t im-
p r o v e m e n t i n t h e c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n ; t h e y seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t
it was stable, and the Missoula evaluation panel gave the
c l a i m a n t an impairment r a t i n g of 6 p e r c e n t of t h e whole p e r s o n .
D e s p i t e some p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g t h e c l a i m a n t ' s p o s i -
t i o n , w e b e l i e v e t h a t 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 i n t h e s t i p u -
lated record to support the Workers ' Compensation Court 's
decision.
On the second contention, the Workers ' Compensat i o n Court
committed no error in refusing to grant a new trial and
rehearing. Rule 19 of the Workers' Compensation Court rules
r e q u i r e s t h a t a m o t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g be f i l e d w i t h i n t w e n t y d a y s
a f t e r a p a r t y r e c e i v e s a copy of the order. T h i s is t h e same
t i m e l i m i t c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 92-829, R.C.M., 1947, ( p r e v i o u s l y
section 2955, R.C.M., 1 9 2 1 ) r which previous to its repeal in
1975, governed r e h e a r i n g s b e f o r e t h e I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board,
the predecessor to the Workers Compensation Court. In
interpreting that section, this Court held that ". . . the
a g g r i e v e d p a r t y was i n t h e same p o s i t i o n as o n e moving f o r a new
trial i n an ordinary case, . . ." Shugg v . Anaconda Copper
Mining C o . ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 0 0 Mont. 159, 166, 167, 46 P.2d 435, and
under t h e p r e s e n t system t h i s h a s not changed.
The claimant here failed to comply with the twenty-day
d e a d l i n e , as t h e f i n d i n g s and judgment were e n t e r e d and m a i l e d o n
A u g u s t 11, 1 9 8 2 , and t h e m o t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g was n o t f i l e d u n t i l
September 7 , 1982, and n o e x t e n s i o n was s o u g h t from t h e c o u r t .
Regarding t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e Workers Compensation
C o u r t s h o u l d h a v e r e o p e n e d t h e c a s e f o r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of new
m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s b a c k i n j u r y was i n a
s t a t e of flux, s e c t i o n 39-71-2909 MCA, governs the procedure.
I t r e a d s as f o l l o w s :
Au to
" - t h o r i t y -r e v i e w , d i m -i s h , o r i n c r e a s e
i n- -
a w a r d s -- l i m i t a t i o n .
-- The j u d g e may, upon the
p e t i t i o n of a c l a i m a n t o r a n i n s u r e r t h a t t h e
disability of the claimant has changed,
r e v i e w , d i m i n i s h , or i n c r e a s e , i n accordance
w i t h t h e l a w on b e n e f i t s as s e t f o r t h i n
c h a p t e r 7 1 o f t h i s t i t l e , any b e n e f i t s pre-
v i o u s l y awarded b y t h e j u d g e o r b e n e f i t s
received by a claimant through s e t t l e m e n t
a g r e e m e n t s . However, t h e j u d g e may n o t c h a n g e
a n y f i n a l s e t t l e m e n t or award o f c o m p e n s a t i o n
more t h a n 4 y e a r s a f t e r t h e s e t t l e m e n t h a s
been approved by t h e d i v i s i o n o r any o r d e r
a p p r o v i n g a f u l l and f i n a l compromise s e t t l e -
ment of compensation."
The a p p e a r a n c e of a new and more s e r i o u s f e a t u r e of a n i n j u r y
justifies reopening of the case, L a r s o n , Workers Compensation
Law, Vol. 3 , §81:31, 15-489 - 15-495, under t h i s s e c t i o n . Where
such a feature is alleged by the claimant and the Workerst
Compensation Court denies his application for reopening, it
should e n t e r findings s e t t i n g o u t t h e r e a s o n s f o r its r e f u s a l to
reopen. Such f i n d i n g s are n e c e s s a r y so t h a t t h i s C o u r t may see
whether o r not t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s order is s u p
p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e .
Here, c l a i m a n t s u b m i t t e d a m o t i o n t o t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensa-
t i o n C o u r t a f t e r f i n a l j u d g m e n t had b e e n e n t e r e d , e n t i t l e d m o t i o n
t o amend f i n d i n g s ; m o t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ; m o t i o n to r e o p e n case to
add evidence of subsequent events showing temporary total
d i s a b i l i t y ; m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l , o r r e h e a r i n g to add e v i d e n c e of
s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s showing c l a i m a n t 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 .
W e h o l d t h a t s u c h m o t i o n is s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e a p e t i t i o n
t o reopen, based o n Novack v . Montgonery Ward and C o . , supra,
w h e r e w e s t a t e d t h a t u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-2909, MCA, ". . . when a
worker makes a general claim for review of his status, 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 h a s t h e power t o r e v i e w a c l a i m a n t ' s
s t a t u s and d e t e r m i n e a p r o p e r and f a i r s o l u t i o n . " 638 P.2d at
392.
T h i s case is a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and remanded f o r f u r t h e r f i n -
d i n g s on t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r
t o a change i n t h e c l a i m a n t ' s
W e concur:
I
/
Chief ~ u s t i c e