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 -