Wise v. Perkins

No. 82-01
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982

DORIS WISE,
Claimant and Respondent,

RUTH PERKINS, d/b/a
HIDEAWAY,
Employer,
and
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court
Honorable Tim Reardon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
James P. Harrington, Butte, Montana
For Respondent:
Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, Montana 59711

Submitted on briefs: October 26, 1982
Decided: January 6, 1983
JAii L :..;;3
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 the
Court.

Claimant was awarded temporary total disability benefits,

p e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , and a t t o r -
ney fees by a September 15, 1981, judgment of the Workers'

Compensation C o u r t . Employer now a p p e a l s .
Claimant, D o r i s Wise, was employed b y Ruth P e r k i n s , d/b/a
Hideaway, a bar-restaurant combination i n Anaconda. She b e g a n

working a t t h e Hideaway i n August 1976, as a j a n i t r e s s . This
work r e q u i r e d her to c l e a n t h e b u s i n e s s p r e m i s e s seven days a
week. She b e g a n a t 6:00 a . m . and worked t w o to two and o n e - h a l f
h o u r s on week d a y s and f o u r t o f i v e h o u r s o n S a t u r d a y and S u n d a y .

Her duties included mopping, sweeping and buffing the floors,
c l e a n i n g t h e b a t h r o o m s , and dumping g a r b a g e .

I n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 , c l a i m a n t b e g a n to b a r t e n d o n e e i g h t h o u r

s h i f t on S u n d a y s i n a d d i t i o n t o h e r j a n i t o r i a l work. Then, in
November 1 9 7 7 , s h e b e g a n b a r t e n d i n g Monday t h r o u g h S a t u r d a y and

worked e i t h e r s i x or e i g h t h o u r s h i f t s e a c h n i g h t i n a d d i t i o n t o

cleaning each day. This work pattern continued until her

e m p l o y m e n t t e r m i n a t e d on A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 .

On December 2 8 , 1 9 7 7 , e m p l o y e r ' s b r o t h e r and ex-husband were
k i l l e d in a plane crash. A 1 1 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n of

the Hideaway from that date to January 12, 1978, fell on

claimant. This drastically altered the work claimant was
r e q u i r e d to perform.
D u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d , c l a i m a n t a r r i v e d a t t h e Hideaway a t 6:00

a.m. and c l e a n e d , s t o c k e d t h e coolers, opened t h e b a r a t 10 : 0 0
a.m., and b a r t e n d e d u n t i l l a t e a f t e r n o o n or e a r l y e v e n i n g . She
would t h e n be relieved f o r a few h o u r s b e f o r e s h e r e t u r n e d to
tend bar until closing at 2:00 a.m. Although claimant was

g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d t o s i t on a s t o o l b e h i n d t h e bar d u r i n g s l a c k

times a t w o r k , s h e d i d n o t h a v e t h e t i m e to d o s o to a n y e x t e n t

during t h i s period. N e w Year's Eve was p a r t i c u l a r l y b u s y and
c l a i m a n t was u n a b l e t o s i t down a t a l l . She s t a y e d a t work t h a t
night until 3;00 a.m. in order t o c l e a n up p a r t of t h e mess,
returned a t 6 ~ 0 0a . m . to c l e a n and o p e n t h e b a r , and worked a

f u l l e i g h t hour s h i f t tending the bar. It was t h e n e x t d a y ,
January 2, 1978, that she first noticed a swelling and sore
spots in her legs. From t h a t d a t e forward, she continued to

n o t i c e s w e l l i n g and p a i n i n h e r l e g s and f e e t a f t e r s t a n d i n g o r
walking. Between J a n u a r y 2 , 1 9 7 8 , and A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 , c l a i m a n t

c o n t i n u e d t o c l e a n t h e p r e m i s e s d a i l y and to b a r t e n d s i x w e e k l y

s h i f t s of s i x to e i g h t h o u r s e a c h .
On A p r i l 28 e m p l o y e r f o u n d h e r a t work b a r e f o o t . H e r legs

were s o s w o l l e n t h a t s h e c o u l d n o t g e t b o o t s o r s h o e s on them.
Employer told claimant to go home and to have the condition
treated.

Claimant's condition was diagnosed as thrombophlebitis of

both l e g s . She f i l e d a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t i o n w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n

o f Workers Compensation. T h i s m a t t e r , b y s t i p u l a t i o n of coun-
sel, was submitted to the Workerst Compensation Court on the

depositions of claimant, employer, Dr. J o h n A. Romito, and D r .
Richard B e s t i n l i e u of t r i a l . The c o u r t found t h a t c l a i m a n t had

s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) ,

MCA, and awarded h e 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 , p e r m a n e n t t o t a l
disability, medical expenses, and costs and attorney fees.

E m p l o y e r p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l :
1. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s
injury arose in the course and scope of her employment;
2. Whether substantial evidence supports the Worker's
Compensation Court finding that claimant is permanently,
t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d ; and
3. W h e t h e r c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d a n " i n j u r y " w i t h i n t h e meaning

of s e c t i o n 3 9 - 7 1 - 1 1 9 ( 1 ) , MCA.

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 the

Workers C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t w h e r e 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 its 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. (19791, - -- Mont . -- -- I .- -- , 6 0 1 P.2d 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 , 3 6 S t . R e p .
1 8 6 6 , 1 8 6 9 , and cases c i t e d therein. Where f i n d i n g s are b a s e d
upon con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , o u r f u n c t i o n is t o de t e r m i n e w h e t h e r

s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u c h a s w i l l c o n v i n c e r e a s o n a b l e men sup-
ports the findings . Harmon v . Deaconess H o s p i t a l ( 1 9 8 1) , -- - - - -.
-

Mont .- . , 6 2 3 P.2d 1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 5 , 38 S t . R e p . 65, 68.
Employer c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a
finding t h a t claimant's p h l e b i t i s a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e and s c o p e

o f h e r employment. She a r g u e s f i r s t t h a t c l a i m a n t r a r e l y worked
a f o r t y - h o u r week d u r i n g t h e term o f h e r employment. Second, she
a r g u e s t h a t while prolonged s t a n d i n g i n one s p o t can c o n t r i b u t e

to the development of phlebitis, the walking which claimant's
work required could actually be helpful rather than harmful.
Finally, she contends that because claimant would sit i n one

p o s i t i o n and sew on h e r o f f - d u t y h o u r s , t h a t a n a l t e r n a t i v e c a u s e
of i n j u r y o u t s i d e of t h e c o u r s e and t h e s c o p e of employment is
presented. These arguments f a i l .

The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e Workers Compensation Court f i n d i n g
that claimant worked excessive hours during the period from

December 28, 1977, to J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1978. It also supports a

f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t t h e n c o n t i n u e d to work s i x s h i f t s of s i x to
e i g h t h o u r s e a c h p e r week i n a d d i t i o n to h e r c l e a n i n g d u t i e s .
Claimant and employer both tes t i £ i e d to cla i m a n t l s increased

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and w o r k l o a d from A u g u s t 1 9 7 6 u n t i l h e r t e r m i -
n a t i o n on A p r i l 2 8 , 1 9 7 8 .
Both physicians testified that a number of factors can

c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of p h l e b i t i s , including prolonged
s t a n d i n g , trauma, heart failure, cancer, tumors, pregnancy, and
blood d e f i c i e n c i e s .

Based upon their medical examinations and claimant I s

employment h i s t o r y , t h e d o c t o r s e a c h named t h e s t a n d i n g r e q u i r e d
b y h e r work as a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r c a u s i n g t h e p h l e b i t i s . Dr.

Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t b a s e d upon a r e a s o n a b l e d e g r e e of m e d i c a l
certainty, claimant I s employment d u t i e s were the cause of her
phlebitis. H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i f a n i n d i v i d u a l had a v a s c u -
l a r c o n d i t i o n of phlebitis, "standing alone, c e r t a i n l y walking,

b u t t h e s t a n d i n g a l o n e " would be e n o u g h to a g g r a v a t e and i n f a c t
c a u s e t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r which he t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t . Dr. B e s t also

t e s t i f i e d t h a t s t a n d i n g was a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n t h e d e v e l o p -

ment of p h l e b i t i s . B o t h p h y s i c i a n s e l i m i n a t e d o t h e r f a c t o r s as
p o t e n t i a l c a u s e s o f t h e p h l e b i t i s , o n t h e b a s i s of t h e i r examina-

t i o n s and t h e m e d i c a l h i s t o r i e s t a k e n .

Nor does the record support employer's contention that
claimant 's phlebitis could have been caused by sitting and

sewing. Dr. Best, employer's physician, rejected s i t t i n g as a

cause of phlebitis unless other contributing factors were
present. Dr. R o m i t o w a s a s k e d i f it were p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e p h l e -

bitis was c a u s e d b y s i t t i n g still sewing for long periods of

time. H e a n s w e r e d "no." Even when a s k e d to d i s r e g a r d c l a i m a n t ' s
employment a c t i v i t i e s and t o c o n s i d e r t h e h o u r s of s i t t i n g s t i l l
in isolation, he stated that i t would be v e r y u n u s u a l for the

s i t t i n g t o cause such a problem. S u f f i c i e n t evidence supports
t h e Workers Compensation C o u r t ' s finding t h a t claimant's injury

was work r e l a t e d .
E m p l o y e r n e x t c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f e v i d e n c e to sup-
port the conclusion that claimant is permanently totally

disabled. T h i s argument is w i t h o u t m e r i t . Employer f o u n d s h e r

argument upon the doctors' testimony that claimant "might" be
able to perform work that involved some walking. Employer
ignores the extensive evidence presented that demonstrates

claimant's continuing d i s a b i l i t y .
Dr. Romito testified t h a t a f t e r close o b s e r v a t i o n and t r e a t -
ment of the condition f o r f i v e months w i t h o u t significant im-

p r o v e m e n t , he a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t would c o n t i n u e to s u f f e r
from p h l e b i t i s f o r t h e remainder of h e r l i f e . While D r . Romito

answered t h a t c l a i m a n t m i g h t be a b l e t o work in a position in

which she walked, rather than stood, the answers reflected a
" t r y a job and see i f you can handle i t " attitude. He first

stipulated t h a t s h e s h o u l d wear good custom-made support hose,
that s h e work v e r y l i m i t e d h o u r s , and t h a t s h e n o t work as a
waitress or bartender. When asked d i r e c t l y whether he would

suggest or recommend that claimant work as a bartender, Dr.

Romito a n s w e r e d , "absolutely not," and e x t e n d e d t h a t a n s w e r to

" a n y o c c u p a t i o n w h i c h would require s t a n d i n g or w a l k i n g . " Dr.

B e s t l i m i t e d h i s a p p r o v a l o f work, s u c h as s a l e s c l e r k w o r k , to a

situation where c l a i m a n t would be w a l k i n g around. He stated:
" [ I ] £ s h e h a s t o s t a n d a r o u n d and t a l k to p e o p l e and n o t move,
she should avoid that."

Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t she cannot be on h e r feet for any
e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f t i m e and t h a t s h e m u s t e l e v a t e h e r l e g s or l i e
down periodically during the day to prevent the phlebitic

s w e l l i n g and p a i n . S i n c e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r e m p l o y m e n t , s h e h a s
had s e v e r a l e p i s o d e s of p h l e b i t i s a f t e r s i t t i n g and s e w i n g and
subsequently must now refrain from sitting for any extended

p e r i o d of time. On a t l e a s t t h r e e o c c a s i o n s s h e h a s had b l o o d
clots develop in h e r legs. When a c l o t d i s l o d g e d and t r a v e l e d to
h e r l u n g s d u r i n g o n e o f t h e s e e p i s o d e s , c l a i m a n t was h o s p i t a l i z e d

f o r severe chest pain. T h i s a t t a c k stemmed from t h e a c t i v i t y s h e
e n g a g e d i n d u r i n g a move f r o m o n e h o u s e t o another. A second
f l a r e - u p a f t e r t h e move r e s u l t e d i n o r d e r e d bed r e s t . B o t h phy-

s i c i a n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by a p a t i e n t w i t h s u c h a

m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y from i n d i v i d u a l t o i n d i v i -
dual.

Permanent total disability is defined in section

39-71-116 ( 1 3 ) , MCA, as f o l l o w s :
" ' P e r m a n e n t t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' means a con-
d i t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m i n j u r y as d e f i n e d i n
t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t r e s u l t s i n t h e l o s s of
a c t u a l e a r n i n g s or e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y t h a t
e x i s t s a f t e r t h e i n j u r e d w o r k e r is a s f a r
r e s t o r e d a s t h e p e r m a n e n t c h a r a c t e r of t h e
i n i u r i e s w i l l p e r m i t and w h i c h r e s u l t s i n t h e
wo;ker h a v i n g no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t o f f i n d -
i ng r e g u 1 r ei@ o
a -
l - a n i k x d- i n t L e
.
-
.

n o r m a l --l a--o r -- --e t
b - m a r k -- ~isabilitv shall be-
su?
ported by a preponderance- of medical
evidence." (Emphasis added. )
I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , t h i s Court has s t a t e d :

"We h o l d t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e is s u f f i c i e n t t o
support the finding of the Workers'
 Compensation C o u r t t h a t c l a i m a n t is 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 d e s p i t e t h e f a c t
t h a t h e c a n and h a s d o n e v a r i o u s odd j o b s . As
we have s a i d b e f o r e :
"I. .. a man w i t h a s t i f f e n e d arm or damaged
b a c k or b a d l y weakened e y e w i l l p r e s u m a b l y
h a v e a h a r d e r t i m e d o i n g h i s work w e l l and
m e e t i n g t h e c o m p e t i t i o n of young and h e a l t h y
men. When a man s t a n d s b e f o r e 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 w i t h p r o v e n p e r m a n e n t phy-
s i c a l i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy
clause has abolished all possibility of
common-law d a m a g e s , it is n o t j u s t i f i a b l e t o
t e l l him h e h a s u n d e r g o n e no i m p a i r m e n t o f
e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of
c u r r e n t pay checks.' Fermo v. Superline
P r o d u c t s ( 1 9 7 8 ) Mont. 574 P.2d 2 5 1 , 253, 3 5
S t . Rep. 2 2 .
" B e c a u s e c l a i m a n t c a n p e r f o r m a few odd j o b s
f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e does not p r e c l u d e a
f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t i s t o t a l l y and p e r -
manently disabled. T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e
w h e r e , as h e r e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e
c l a i m a n t m u s t work w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e
of pain." J e n s e n v. Zook B r o s . Construction
CO. ( 1 9 7 8 ) r 1 7 8 Mont. 5 9 , 62-63, 582 P.2d
1191, 1193.
Here, c l a i m a n t h a s b e e n i n s t r u c t e d t o n o t work as a b a r t e n d e r

o r i n a n y o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e s t a n d i n g o r w a l k i n g . She

c a n n o t s i t f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e w i t h o u t d e v e l o p i n g s w e l l i n g or
pain in her legs. She m u s t e l e v a t e h e r f e e t s e v e r a l times a d a y
t o p r e v e n t a f l a r e - u p o f h e r symptoms. Employer's p h y s i c i a n h a s

advised a g a i n s t a n y o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would require standing or
s i t t i n g f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . H e recommended s a l e s c l e r k work

o n l y i f c l a i m a n t c o u l d move a r o u n d -- n o t if she has t o "stand

a r o u n d and t a l k t o p e o p l e ".
C l a i m a n t was thirty-seven years of age on t h e d a t e of her

termination. She m a r r i e d t w o m o n t h s a f t e r f i n i s h i n g h i g h s c h o o l

a n d had f i v e c h i l d r e n . The o n l y employment e x p e r i e n c e c l a i m a n t
had p r i o r t o h e r employment a t t h e Hideaway was n i n e m o n t h s of
w o r k a s a c l e r k a t a C i r c l e K s t o r e i n 1 9 7 3 , and a p p r o x i m a t e l y a

y e a r and a h a l f o f work a s a c a s h i e r and h o t e l c l e r k f r o m f a l l
1974 t o s p r i n g 1976. She was e a r n i n g $ 2 . 2 5 p e r h o u r f o r c l e a n i n g

a n d $ 4 . 2 5 p e r h o u r f o r b a r t e n d i n g a t t h e d a t e of h e r t e r m i n a t i o n .

C l a i m a n t h a s no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t o f employment. H e r capa-

bilities have been severely restricted . Substantial evidence
s u p p o r t s t h e h o l d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t .

E m p l o y e r ' s f i n a l a r g u m e n t is t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is n o t
a n 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(1), MCA. She
a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e of a t a n g i b l e , p e r c e p t i b l e hap-

p e n i n g o f a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e and t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s would

t h e r e f o r e be a n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e if it a r o s e i n the course

a n d s c o p e o f h e r employment. W e reject t h i s argument.

S e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, d e f i n e s i n j u r y as:

" ( 1 ) A t a n g i b l e happening o f a t r a u m a t i c
n a t u r e f r o m a n u n e x p e c t e d c a u s e or u n u s u a l
s t r a i n r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r e x t e r n a l or i n t e r -
n a l p h y s i c a l harm and s u c h p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n
a s a r e s u l t t h e r e f r o m and e x c l u d i n g d i s e a s e n o t
t r a c e a b l e t o i n j u r y , e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n
s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of t h i s s e c t i o n . "
Two e l e m e n t s m u s t be d e m o n s t r a t e d : (1) a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g

o f a t a n g i b l e n a t u r e ; a n d , ( 2 ) t h a t t h i s is t h e c a u s e of p h y s i c a l

harm. Moen v. D e c k e r C o a l Co. (1979), - Mont. --- - , 6 0 4 P.2d
765, 767, 36 St.Rep. 2220, 2222. Employer contends that
c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s g r a d u a l l y d e v e l o p e d and p r o g r e s s e d o v e r f o u r

months. T h a t is n o t t h e case.
The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that "the week

b e g i n n i n g o n December 28 1977, was a tangible h a p p e n i n g of a

t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n . " The c o u r t b a s e d t h i s
conclusion upon testimony establishing the excessive hours

c l a i m a n t worked d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and it r e l i e d upon o u r h o l d i n g

i n Hoehne v . G r a n i t e Lumber C o . (1980), -- Mont .- , 6 1 5 P.2d
863, 8 6 5 , 37 S t . R e p . 1 3 0 7 , 1309-1310. In - -
Hoehne, w e r e c o g n i z e d
-

t h a t a t a n g i b l e h a p p e n i n g need n o t be a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t ,
b u t may v e r y w e l l be a c h a i n of incidents leading to injury.
There the claimant suffered from a bilateral carpel tunnel
s y n d r o m e b r o u g h t o n by a c h a i n of i n c i d e n t s as c l a i m a n t s t a c k e d
t w o by f o u r s a t a l u m b e r y a r d e v e r y d a y . W e found t h a t t h e unu-

s u a l s t r a i n i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s u n e x p e c t e d i n j u r y w a s c a u s e d by
a tangible happening. See also, Love v. Ralph's Food Store

(1973) 1 6 3 Mont. 234, 241-242, 516 P.2d 5 9 8 , 602-603; Robins v
O g l e ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 1 5 7 Mont. 3 2 8 , 3 3 3 , 4 8 5 P.2d 6 9 2 , 694-695; J o n e s v.
 Bair's Cafes (1968), 152 Mont. 13, 19, 445 P.2d 923, 926.
C l a i m a n t ' s e x c e s s i v e work s c h e d u l e d u r i n g t h e week b e g i n n i n g

December 28, 1977, is similarly a tangible happening that
resulted i n an unusual strain. Substantial evidence supports

the conclusion t h a t claimant's p h l e b i t i s developed during that

period rather than over f o u r months. She testified that she
f i r s t noticed the pain and s w e l l i n g on J a n u a r y 2 , 1978. Dr.

Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s a f f e c t i n g t h e s u p e r f i c i a l v e i n s

s y s t e m can r e s u l t i n a narrowing of t h e s y s t e m t h a t would c a u s e
symptoms and lead itself toward c l o t s w i t h i n a m a t t e r of d a y s .
Finally, claimant 's unrebutted testimony established that she
had no prior history of phlebitis and Drs. Romito and Best

t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s is n o t a n e x p e c t e d r e s u l t o f work as a

bartender.
I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is a n o c c u p a -
t i o n a l d i s e a s e r a t h e r t h a n an i n j u r y , employer must d e m o n s t r a t e

t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n i n j u r y and o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e . The t w o

crucial points of distinction are time definiteness and unex-
pectedness. L a r s o n ' s Workmen's Compensation Law, Section 41.31

p. 7-357-359. Employer h a s f a i l e d to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e p h l e -
b i t i s d e v e l o p e d o v e r t i m e or t h a t it was e x p e c t e d . The r e c o r d
s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t

c l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) ,
MCA.

Af f i r m e d .
4 , d f6 J-ustice / , d & ,
Chie (tCa
Ye c o n c u r :