Erhart v. Great Western Sugar Company

No. 13130 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1976 LAWRENCE W. ERHART, Claimant and Respondent, GREAT WESTERN SUGAR COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Hon. C . B. Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : H u t t o n , Sheehy and Cromley a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana B r e n t R. Cromley a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: Michael J. Whalen a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted : F e b r u a r y 3 , 1976 ,f,fiG - 4 '"7.' Decided : .,. ,.> ,,j~b Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment entered in district court, Yellowstone County, reversing an order of the Workmen's Compensation Division denying compensation to claimant on the grounds no industrial accident or injury had occurred. Lawrence W. Erhart (claimant) was employed by Great Western Sugar Company in its Billings, Montana, plant. Claim- ant began work for Great Western in August, 1968, as a laborer. Due to his electronics background, he worked himself up to an instrument man performing technical work with electronic and automatic equipment. In 1969, Great Western began converting its older sugar conversion system to a computerized system operated pneumatically and electronically. Claimant was told by the company management he had the final responsibility to see that the new system worked. When outside engineers came to the plant to assist with the hook-up and explain the process to claimant, he would go home at night and make schematic drawings of the process. At this time claimant claims he worked twelve hour days for six to seven days a week. The new system was going to result in many employees being laid off, resulting in some animosity toward those working to put the system on line. Claimant alleges he was subject to taunts and insults, with suggestions of infidelity on the part of his wife. On December 9, 1970, claimant left work during the middle of the day. On December 15, 1970, claimant's wife called the plant manager to inform him claimant had suffered a mental and physical breakdown. Meanwhile, claimant had made his way to the Veterans Administration Hospital at Fort Harrison, seeking help. At the hospital he related a rather disjointed and bizarre story r e g a r d i n g h i s b e l i e f s a s t o why e v e r y o n e was a g a i n s t him. C l a i m a n t w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e V. A . H o s p i t a l a t S h e r i d a n , Wyoming f o r p s y c h i a t r i c t r e a t m e n t . He was later t r e a t e d a t t h e F o r t Meade, S o u t h Dakota V. A. H o s p i t a l f o r t h e same s c h i z o p h r e n i c c o n d i t i o n . S i n c e t h e t i m e o f h i s n e r v o u s breakdown, c l a i m a n t h a s been u n a b l e t o p e r f o r m p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l l a b o r f o r more t h a n two o r t h r e e h o u r s w i t h o u t r e s t . The p s y c h i a t r i s t t r e a t i n g c l a i m a n t a t S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, a t t r i b u t e d c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n t o stress a t work a n d t h e i m m - i n e n t b i r t h of a n unplanned c h i l d . H e would n o t s t a t e w h e t h e r t h e breakdown would n o t have r e s u l t e d i n t i m e a b s e n t t h e stresses. I n F e b r u a r y , 1971, c l a i m a n t f i l e d a Workmen's Compensa- t i o n c l a i m i n d i c a t i n g a c o m p l e t e m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l breakdown on December 9, 1970. G r e a t Western r e f u s e d t h e c l a i m , s t a t i n g no i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t was i n v o l v e d . I n September, 1971, c l a i m a n t f i l e d s u i t i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t a g a i n s t G r e a t Western and t h e p l a n t ' s g r o u p h e a l t h i n s u r - a n c e c a r r i e r f o r w r o n g f u l d e p r i v a t i o n o f h i s j o b and d i s a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e payments. The s u i t was s e t t l e d i n March, 1 9 7 2 , and c l a i m a n t s i g n e d a r e l e a s e and s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t . The d i s - t r i c t c o u r t dismissed t h e s u i t with prejudice. I n J a n u a r y , 1 9 7 3 , c l a i m a n t s c o u n s e l r e q u e s t e d a Workmen's Compensation h e a r i n g on t h e 1 9 7 1 c l a i m . A hearing w a s held i n March, 1973. A d d i t i o n a l t i m e was a l l o w e d f o r t a k i n g o f d e p o s i t i o n s o f c l a i m a n t (who was h o s p i t a l i z e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g ) , and t h e d o c t o r and p s y c h i a t r i c worker a t S h e r i d a n , Wyoming. The m a t t e r was n o t deemed s u b m i t t e d u n t i l March, 1974. The c l a i m was d e n i e d i n A p r i l , 1974, w i t h a r e h e a r i n g a l s o d e n i e d . I n J u l y , 1974, c l a i m a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which r e v e r s e d t h e d e n i a l o f t h e D i v i s i o n a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e c e r t i f i e d record of t h e Division w i t h a d d i t i o n a l testimony from c l a i m a n t ' s w i f e on h i s c o n d i t i o n a t t h a t t i m e . G r e a t Western a p p e a l s from t h e judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t court. Of t h e s e v e n i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t , f o u r main i s s u e s a p p e a r : 1. W a s t h e r e a n i n j u r y e n t i t l i n g c l a i m a n t t o compen- s a t i o n u n d e r t h e Montana Workmen's Compensation Act? 2. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n n o t a c c o r d i n g e v e r y presumption o f c o r r e c t n e s s t o t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e D i v i s i o n ? 3. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t have a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v e r t c l a i m a n t ' s award i n t o a lump sum? 4. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n a s s e s s i n g c o s t s o f d e p o s i t i o n s t o G r e a t Western? I n s e c t i o n 9 2 - 4 1 8 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, a n " i n j u r y " i s d e f i n e d , f o r workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n p u r p o s e s , as: " * * * 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 from a n u n e x p e c t e d c a u s e , o r 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 o r 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 * * *." W e have h e l d a compensable i n j u r y u n d e r t h e Workmen's Compensation A c t must m e e t t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e statute. H u r l b u t v . V o l l s t e d t K e r r Company, Mont . , 538 P.2d 344, 346, 32 St.Rep. 752. I n Hurlbut w e s t a t e d : " * * * t h e r e a r e two e l e m e n t s i n t h e s t a t u t e [ s e c t i o n 92-418, R.C.M. 19471 which must be m e t (1) t h e r e must be 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 n a t u r e , and ( 2 ) t h i s must be shown t o b e t h e c a u s e o f p h y s i c a l harm." Workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n c a s e s n o r m a l l y d e a l w i t h p h y s i c a l i n j u r y r e s u l t i n g from a n a c c i d e n t , a s t h e t e r m i s used i n e v e r y - day language. When a s h i p p i n g c r a t e f a l l s o n a worker b r e a k i n g a bone o r two, t h e c a u s a t i o n and t h e t a n g i b l e happening a r e easily identifiable. I n t h e p r e s e n t case w e a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a n e r v o u s d i s a b i l i t y , which may o r may n o t be c a u s a l l y re- l a t e d t o t h e employment s i t u a t i o n . S e c t i o n 92-418, R.C.M. 1947, was amended by S e c t i o n 1, C h a p t e r 270, Laws o f 1967, a d d i n g " o r u n u s u a l s t r a i n " t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n of an injury. The f i r s t c a s e i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e s t a t - u t e a s amended i n 1967 was J o n e s v . B a i r ' s C a f e s , 152 Mont. 1 3 , 1 9 , 445 P.2d 923. I n J o n e s a w a i t r e s s p i c k e d up a n u n u s u a l l y heavy t r a y o f d i s h e s from t h e f l o o r and s u f f e r e d a back i n j u r y . This Court, i n s u s t a i n i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i n d i n g of a n i n d u s t r i a l accident, stated: "Now, i n 1967, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n c l u d e d t h e words ' o r unusual s t r a i n . ' What i s t h e meaning? How d o w e measure ' u n u s u a l s t r a i n . ' I t seems c l e a r t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o c h a n g e and modify t h e James d e c i s i o n . [James v . V . K. V . Lumber Co., 145 Mont. 466, 401 P.2d 282; w h e r e i n c o m p e n s a t i o n was d e n i e d f o r a n i n j u r y d u e t o s t r a i n b u t n o t from a n unexpected c a u s e . ] By a d d i n g t h e s e p a r a t e d i s - t i n c t phrase, ' o r unusual s t r a i n , ' t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o cover j u s t such a s i t u a t i o n a s w e have here. T h e r e was no ' u n e x p e c t e d c a u s e ' b u t t h e r e was a n ' u n u s u a l s t r a i n ' ; t h u s t h e measure would seem t o b e t h e r e s u l t o f 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 which r e s u l t s i n p h y s i c a l harm, be i t a r u p t u r e , a s t r a i n o r a s p r a i n . W e c a n o n l y r e l y on c r e d i b l e m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e i t . Here w e have s u c h m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e . " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e c r e d i b l e medical evidence i s n o t d e t e r m i n a t i v e of a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n , n o r i s i t d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f t h e cause of c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n being an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t or injury. The p s y c h i a t r i s t who t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t a t t h e S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, V. A. H o s p i t a l was, a t b e s t , vague and u n c e r t a i n a s t o t h e cause of c l a i m a n t ' s schizophrenia. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t no o n e knows f o r s u r e t h e c a u s e o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a and i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n s t a n c e i t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o a t t r i b u t e t h e c o n d i t i o n t o any p a r t i c u l a r stress i n t h e l i f e o f c l a i m a n t . S t o r d a h l v . Rush Implement Co., This Court s a i d i n / 148 Mont. 1 3 , 20, 417 P.2d 95: "Whenever a m e d i c a l e x p e r t t e s t i f i e s t h a t a n asserted cause of d i s e a s e i s possible, t h i s alone i s n o t t o be accepted a s reasonable medical proof. * * * " See a l s o , McAndrews v . Schwartz v . G l a c i e r Gen. A s s u r . Co., 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379. Claimant c i t e s t h e e a r l i e r c a s e of Gaffney v . I n d . Acc. Board, 129 Mont. 394, 404, 287 P.2d 256, f o r t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t a n i n j u r e d workman may r e c o v e r compensation i f t h e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n c a n be shown by d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ; a p o s i t i v e s t a t e m e n t by a m e d i c a l w i t n e s s of a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s unnecessary. The a c t u a l wording i n Gaffney i s : " * * * The f r a n k a d m i s s i o n o f t h e t e s t i f y i n g d o c t o r t h a t he c o u l d n o t s t a t e p o s i t i v e l y o n e way o r a n o t h e r need n o t b a r t h e c l a i m a n t from r e c o v e r y i f on t h e whole r e c o r d it c a n be s a i d t h a t he i s e n t i t l e d t h e r e t o . * * * " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e c o r d a s a whole d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o compensation. I n Robins v . Ogle, 157 Mont. 328, 333, 485 P.2d 692, w e found compensable, a back i n j u r y r e c e i v e d by a cook mopping a c a f e f l o o r when s h e l i f t e d a heavy p a i l o f w a t e r . I n t h a t case we stated: " * * * The p r e p o s i t i o n ' o r ' p r e c e d i n g - t h e t e r m ' u n u s u a l s t r a i n ' s i m p l y s i g n i f i e s 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 e i t h e r (1) from a n unexpected c a u s e , o r ( 2 ) from a n u n u s u a l s t r a i n . A c c o r d i n g l y , a t a n - g i b l e happening of a n unexpected n a t u r e from a n un- u s u a l s t r a i n q u a l i f i e s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether t h e s t r a i n i s ' u n u s u a l ' from t h e s t a n d p o i n t of c a u s e o r e f f e c t . * * *" 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 a 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 nature. J o n e s v . B a i r ' s C a f e s , s u p r a ; Robins v . Ogle, s u p r a . In Love v . R a l p h ' s Food S t o r e , 163 Mont. 234, 516 P.2d 598, w e s t a t e d t h a t J o n e s and Robins made t h i s r u l e c l e a r . See, a l s o , the e a r l i e r cases: Lupien v . Montana Record P u b l i s h i n g Co., 143 Mont. 415, 390 P.2d 455; James v . V. K . V. Lumber Co., supra; M i l l e r v . Sundance Recreation, Inc., 1 5 1 Mont. 223, 4 4 1 P.2d 194. A t a n g i b l e happening must be a p e r c e p t i b l e happening, W e b s t e r ' s T h i r d New I n t e r n a t i o n a l D i c t i o n a r y . Some a c t i o n o r i n c i d e n t , o r c h a i n o f a c t i o n s o r i n c i d e n t s , must be shown which may be p e r c e i v e d a s a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e of t h e r e s u l t - ing injury. T h i s C o u r t h a s found n e u r o s e s compensable, b u t a t a n g i b l e , r e a l happening must be a c a u s e of t h e c o n d i t i o n . O ' N e i l v. I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board, 107 Mont. 176, 8 1 P.2d 688; B e s t v. London G u a r a n t e e & Acc. Co., 100 Mont. 332, 47 P.2d 656; Sykes v . R e p u b l i c Coal Co., 94 Mont. 239, 22 P.2d 157. Even i n Murphy v. Anaconda Company, 133 Mont. 1 9 8 , 321 P.2d 1094, w h i l e w e r e j e c t e d t h e common l a w u n u s u a l s t r a i n t e s t , a t a n g i b l e happening ( u s u a l e x e r t i o n i n p u s h i n g a m a i l c a r t ) w a s r e q u i r e d b e f o r e d e a t h from a pulmonary embolism c o u l d be found compensable. I n t h e r e c e n t c a s e of Love where a g r a d u a l b u i l d u p o f back p a i n was found compensable, t h i s C o u r t emphasized two s p e c i f i c i n c i - d e n t s of s t r a i n w e r e p e r c e p t i b l e from t h e r e c o r d . I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , n e i t h e r c l a i m a n t nor t h e m e d i c a l w i t n e s s were a b l e t o p o i n t t o one o r more t a n g i b l e , r e a l , p e r - c e p t i b l e happenings a s t h e s o l e o r c o n t r i b u t o r y c a u s e o f c l a i m - a n t ' s mental condition. Claimant h a s f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden of p r o o f , t h u s p r e c l u d i n g h i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e s t a t u t e . A presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s f o r 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 l a w of t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n , i f s u p p o r t e d by c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e . Mulholland v . B u t t e & Superior Min. Co., 87 Mont. 561, 289 P. 574; B i r n i e v . U.S. Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39, 328 P.2d 133; H u r l b u t v . V o l l s t e d t Kerr Co., supra. The r u l e t o be f o l l o w e d by t h i s C o u r t on r e v i e w o f t h e s e t y p e s of c a s e s i s w e l l s e t o u t i n H u r l b u t v . V o l l s e e d t Kerr Company, Mont . , 538 P.2d 344, 346, 32 St.Rep. 752: " T h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t where t h e a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s h e a r d o n l y on t h e D i v i s i o n ' s c e r t i f i e d r e c o r d o r when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t permits a d d i t i o n a l evidence t o be i n t r o d u c e d and t h e a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i s not important o r adds nothing t o t h e c a s e , then t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may n o t r e v e r s e t h e D i v i s i o n unless t h e evidence c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Division." The a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e g i v e n by c l a i m a n t ' s w i f e a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g o n l y went t o c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g and e v e n t s s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e D i v i s i o n h e a r - ing. T h i s t e s t i m o n y shed no new l i g h t on t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f c l a i m e n t ' s nervous c o n d i t i o n . W e find t h e d i s t r i c t court erred i n reversing t h e Division a s no e v i d e n c e on t h e r e c o r d o r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t hearing c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e Division's findings. A s w e have d e t e r m i n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e v e r - s i n g t h e D i v i s i o n ' s f i n d i n g s , t h e lump sum award g r a n t e d c l a i m a n t by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a l s o n u l l i f i e d , t h e r e f o r e t h e i s s u e o f t h e c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t such a n award need n o t be examined. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t c l a i m a n t r e c o v e r h i s c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e c o s t s o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n a t S h e r i d a n , Wyoming, and t h e c o p i e s t h e r e o f . G r e a t Western a r g u e s t h e s e c o s t s w e r e n o t p r o p e r l y t a x e d t o it by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The r e p o r t e r , who t o o k t h e d e p o s i t i o n s , s e n t t h e b i l l f o r t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t o c l a i m a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , who forwarded it t o t h e D i v i s i o n f o r payment. The D i v i s i o n r e f u s e d payment, s t a t i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n s w e r e not a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e Division, but w e r e a t t h e r e q u e s t , and f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f , c l a i m a n t . I t appears t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t taxed t h e c o s t s t o Great Western b e c a u s e c l a i m a n t was t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . W have h e l d e c l a i m a n t s h a l l n o t p r e v a i l , t h e r e f o r e , t h e r a t i o n a l e o f award- ing c o s t s t o the prevailing party i s absent. The d e p o s i t i o n s were t a k e n a t t h e r e q u e s t o f c l a i m a n t a s he was u n a b l e t o a t t e n d t h e D i v i s i o n h e a r i n g ( a p p a r e n t l y d u e t o h i s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n ) and b e c a u s e t h e p s y c h i a t r i s t and psy- c h i a t r i c worker d i d n o t w i s h t o a t t e n d t h e h e a r i n g , a l l b e i n g beyond t h e r e a c h of t h e D i v i s i o n ' s subpoena power, s e c t i o n 92- 816, R.C.M. 1947, ( s i n c e r e p e a l e d ) . This Court has held t h a t d e p o s i t i o n s taken purely f o r v. one p a r t y ' s b e n e f i t c a n n o t be c h a r g e d a s c o s t s ; ~ a v i s Trobough, 139 Mont. 322, 363 P.2d 727; j u s t a s a p a r t y who t e s t i f i e s f o r h i m s e l f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o w i t n e s s f e e s ; Isman v. A l t e n b r a n d , 4 2 Mont. 1 8 8 , 1 1 P. 849. 1 Claimant a r g u e s t h a t Davis d o e s n o t a p p l y h e r e b e c a u s e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s were i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by t h e s t i p u l a t i o n of b o t h p a r t i e s , t h u s t h e y no l o n g e r w e r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t of c l a i m a n t b u t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r and b o t h parties. Claimant c i t e s P f i z e r , I n c . v . Madison County, 1 6 1 Mont. 261, 505 P.2d 399, i n s u p p o r t of t h i s p o s i t i o n . I n ~ f i z e r ,judg- ment w a s a g a i n s t t h e Board of E q u a l i z a t i o n and a f f i r m e d by t h i s C o u r t , t h e q u e s t i o n was what c o s t s of t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y s h o u l d be t a x e d t o t h e Board, a s w e have r e v e r s e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e P f i z e r h o l d i n g i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e on t h e f a c t s and t h e r e s u l t . C l a i m a n t ' s c o s t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e d e p o s i t i o n s and c o p i e s t h e r e o f , s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d a g a i n s t G r e a t Western. The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e o r d e r of t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n i s a f f i r m e d and reinstated. Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: Justices - 9 -