Case Title: PENNY v ANACONDA CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-439

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-08-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 8 0 - 4 3 9 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1 9 8 1 ARTHUR W. PENNY, C l a i m a n t and A p p e l l a n t , ANACONDA COMPANY, E m p l o y e r , and ANACONDA COMPANY, D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t . A p p e a l f r o m : 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 o n o r a b l e W i l l i a m E . H u n t , Judge presiding. C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : D. L . H o l l a n d and R. L e w i s B r o w n , B u t t e , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : U t i c k and G r o s f i e l d , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on briefs: June 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 D e c i d e d : AU G 3 1 1981 Filed: AU G 3 1 19Et M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an a p p e a l by c l a i m a n t A r t h u r W. Penny from a judgment of t h e Workers1 Compensation Court and an o r d e r denying h i s p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g . The h e a r i n g examiner found t h a t Penny s u f f e r e d a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man o f 25% and was e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e b e n e f i t s under s e c t i o n 39-71-703, MCA, as a r e s u l t of compensable i n j u r i e s he s u f f e r e d w h i l e working f o r t h e Anaconda Company, t h e employer and r e s p o n d e n t . The 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 h e a r i n g examiner were adopted by t h e Workers1 Compensation Judge i n h i s judgment and o r d e r of J u l y 1, 1980. Penny brought t h e a c t i o n b e f o r e t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e whether he was permanently t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t of a back i n j u r y he s u f f e r e d on February 15, 1978, w h i l e working f o r t h e Anaconda Company i n B u t t e , Montana, and to d e t e r - mine whether i n j u r i e s he s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of an a l t e r c a t i o n which o c c u r r e d a t work on November 2, 1979, were caused by an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment. A s a r e s u l t of t h e November 2 i n c i d e n t , Penny suf- f e r e d i n j u r i e s to h i s neck, f a c e and back which he a l l e g e s aggra- v a t e d h i s p r e - e x i s t i n g back c o n d i t i o n . I t is undisputed t h a t Penny w a s i n j u r e d i n an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t on February 15, 1978, a r i s i n g o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment, and t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from F e b r u a r y 15, 1978, t o September 17, 1979, Penny e x p e r i e n c e d i n t e r m i t t e n t p e r i o d s when he was unable to work as a r e s u l t of t h e i n j u r i e s . During t h o s e p e r i o d s Penny w a s paid t h e p r o p e r compensation under t h e Workers1 Compensation A c t . It is a l s o undisputed t h a t d u r i n g working hours on November 2, 1979, Penny was involved i n a f i g h t w i t h a co-worker and t h a t s i n c e t h a t t i m e t h e Anaconda Company h a s denied l i a b i l i t y f o r any f u r t h e r compensation b e n e f i t s . C o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y was p r e s e n t e d a t t h e t r i a l as to which man was t h e a g g r e s s o r i n t h e November 2 f i g h t and t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e f i g h t . The h e a r i n g examiner found t h a t Penny i n i - t i a t e d t h e i n c i d e n t . The h e a r i n g examiner also found t h a t Penny s t a r t e d t h e f i g h t s o l e l y t o g r a t i f y h i s f e e l i n g s of a n g e r or h a t r e d toward h i s co-worker which had no c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r union p o l i c i e s . Based on con£ l i c t ing medical e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d d u r i n g t h e t r i a l , t h e h e a r i n g examiner made a f u r t h e r f i n d i n g t h a t Penny s u f f e r e d from a c o n d i t i o n of n e r v e root i r r i t a t i o n b e f o r e t h e f i g h t and t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d d u r i n g t h e f i g h t . The h e a r i n g examiner found t h a t t h e h e r n i a t e d d i s c from which Penny now s u f f e r s r e s u l t e d from t h e November 2 a g g r a v a t i o n of h i s p r i o r i n j u r y . S i n c e he found t h a t t h e f i g h t r e s u l t e d from p e r s o n a l ani- m o s i t y n o t r e l a t e d to employment, t h e h e a r i n g examiner concluded t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d on November 2 were n o t caused by a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t a r i s i n g o u t of Penny's employment and t h a t Penny was n o t e n t i t l e d to b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t f o r i n j u r i e s he s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of t h a t i n c i d e n t . The h e a r i n g examiner also concluded t h a t Penny s h o u l d b e awarded d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s based on a f i n d i n g of permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man of 25% due t o t h e compensable i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d by Penny p r i o r to t h e November 2 a l t e r c a t i o n . The 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 h e a r i n g examiner were adopted by t h e Workers' Compensation Judge and a n o r d e r was e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Penny r a i s e d t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether t h e Workers' Compensation Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Penny d i d n o t s u f f e r a h e r n i a t e d d i s c as a r e s u l t of t h e a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d on February 15, 1978. 2. Whether t h e Workers' Compensation Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s t h a t occurred i n t h e i n c i d e n t of November 2, 1979, d i d n o t arise o u t of Penny's work a t t h e Anaconda Company. 3 . Whether t h e Workers' Compensation Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Penny s u f f e r e d a permanent partial d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man of 25%. The f i r s t i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e h e a r i n g examiner I s f i n d i n g r e g a r d i n g medical e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g . I f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g a medical f i n d i n g by t h e Workers' Compensation Court, t h e Supreme Court is bound by t h e d e c i s i o n of t h a t c o u r t . McGee v. Bechtel Corp. (19791, Mont. , 595 P.2d 1156, 1158-1159, 36 St.Rep. 220, 224. W e f i n d i n t h i s case t h a t t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e found i n t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e c h i r o p r a c t o r and a m e d i c a l e v a l u a t i o n prepared by D r . Alexander Johnson to s u p p o r t t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t Penny d i d n o t s u f f e r a h e r n i a t e d d i s c as a r e s u l t of t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t which o c c u r r e d on February 15, 1978. The a p p e l l a n t , Penny, a r g u e s t h a t t h e testimony of t h e neurosurgeon who examined him a f t e r t h e November 2, 1979, i n c i - d e n t should be g i v e n more weight t h a n t h e testimony of t h e c h i r o p r a c t o r . Both t h e c h i r o p r a c t o r and D r . Johnson, also a neurosurgeon, examined Penny a f t e r t h e February 15, 1978, i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t and p r i o r t o t h e November 2 i n j u r y , and t h e c h i r o p r a c t o r 's t e s t i m o n y was supported by D r . J o h n s o n ' s w r i t t e n r e p o r t . It is t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e Workers1 Compensation Court to r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s of e v i d e n c e and where, as h e r e , it h a s done so and t h e f i n d i n g is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e , w e are bound by t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g . The second i s s u e is whether t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s Penny s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e i n c i d e n t of November 2, 1979, d i d n o t arise o u t of h i s employment w i t h t h e Anaconda Company. Under Montana l a w , an i n j u r y must arise o u t of and o c c u r i n t h e c o u r s e of employment b e f o r e it is compensable under t h e Workers1 Compensation A c t . S e c t i o n 39-71-407, MCA. Unless some r e a s o n a b l y immediate s e r v i c e to t h e employer can be d i s c e r n e d , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether an i n j u r y a r i s e s o u t o f and o c c u r s i n t h e c o u r s e of employment is c o n t r o l l e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of each case. Guarascio v. I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 140 Mont. 497, 502, 374 P.2d 84, 86. I n t h i s case no e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e November 2 i n c i d e n t was of any immediate s e r v i c e to t h e employer. It becomes n e c e s s a r y , t h e r e f o r e , to l o o k a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s surrounding t h e i n c i d e n t t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s a r o s e o u t of Penny's employment. I n t h i s case t h e h e a r i n g examiner found t h a t t h e f i g h t which o c c u r r e d on November 2 was of a p e r s o n a l n a t u r e and n o t connected w i t h Penny's employment. H e d i d f i n d t h a t t h e g e n e s i s of t h e animo- s i t y between Penny and h i s co-worker was a d i f f e r e n c e o v e r union p o l i c i e s , b u t t h a t t h e r e had been a cooling-off p e r i o d of f o u r y e a r s between t h e l a s t argument o v e r union matters and t h e November 2 i n c i d e n t . H e found t h a t t h e f i g h t on November 2 had no c o n n e c t i o n with t h e disagreement o v e r union p o l i c i e s and t h a t Penny s t a r t e d t h e f i g h t s o l e l y to g r a t i f y h i s p e r s o n a l f e e l i n g s o f h a t r e d and anger toward h i s co-worker. I n 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 11.16, it is s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e are two l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y r e g a r d i n g work connected a s s a u l t s i n which t h e work s i t u a t i o n p l a c e s t h e employees under s t r a i n . W e choose t o adopt t h e view set f o r t h i n W i l l i s v. T a y l o r & Fenn Co. ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 137 Conn. 626, 79 A.2d 821, 822, c i t i n g from a p r i o r C o n n e c t i c u t case : '' 'The f a c t t h a t employees sometimes q u a r r e l and f i g h t w h i l e a t work does n o t make t h e i n j u r y which may r e s u l t one which a r i s e s o u t of t h e i r employment. There must be some reaso- n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n between t h e i n j u r y s u f f e r e d and t h e employment o r t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which it is pursued."' Here t h e h e a r i n g examiner found t h a t t h e r e was no r e a s o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n between t h e i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d on November 2, 1979, and Penny's employment. W e must uphold t h i s f i n d i n g made by t h e h e a r i n g examiner and adopted by t h e Workers' Compensation Judge u n l e s s t h e r e is no 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 it. " I f t h e Workers' Compensation Court ' s f i n d i n g s are based on con£ l i c t ing e v i d e n c e . . . t h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on review is con£ ined to d e t e r m i n i n g whether 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 on t h e whole record sup- p o r t i n g such f i n d i n g s ." Harmon v. Deaconess H o s p i t a l (1981 ), Mont . , 623 P.2d1372, 38 St.Rep. 65, 67-68, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . A f t e r a c a r e f u l review of t h e r e c o r d , we f i n d 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 t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g by t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t t h e f i g h t of November 2 w a s n o t r e a s o n a b l y connected to Penny's employment, and w e af f i r m its holding t h a t Penny is n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation Act as a r e s u l t of t h e i n j u r i e s he s u f f e r e d from t h a t i n c i d e n t . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d on t h i s a p p e a l is whether t h e Workers' Compensation Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Penny s u f f e r e d a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man of 25%. The h e a r i n g examiner i n t h i s case e n t e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n of l a w : " O r d i n a r i l y , t h e r e would be medical t e s t i m o n y on impairment r a t i n g s which would h e l p to e s t a b l i s h a p e r c e n t a g e of d i s a b i l i t y and an a p p r o p r i a t e p o r t i o n o f t h e maximum of 500 weeks of p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y payments due. Such f i g u r e s c o u l d be d e r i v e d o n l y by c o n j e c t u r e i n t h i s case. While c l a i m a n t b e a r s t h e burden of p r o o f , he d i d show t h a t he was i n f r e q u e n t p a i n a f t e r t h e September e p i s o d e and t h a t h e was r e l u c t a n t l y c o n s i d e r i n g c o r r e c t i v e s u r g e r y . T h i s is s u f f i c i e n t to show a d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man of 25 p e r c e n t . Claimant is t h e r e f o r e e n t i t l e d to 125 weeks of b e n e f i t s payable a t one- h a l f t h e s t a t e ' s a v e r a g e weekly wage i n September 1979. That weekly average was $198 p e r week a t t h a t t i m e and c l a i m a n t ' s weekly b e n e f i t is t h e r e - f o r e $99.00. 39-71-703, MCA." (Emphasis added.) T h i s c o n c l u s i o n of l a w shows t h a t t h e h e a r i n g examiner himself f e l t t h a t t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a p e r c e n t a g e of d i s a b i l i t y i n t h i s case w a s a m a t t e r of s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n j e c t u r e . The e v i d e n c e h e r e of p a i n is i n s u f f i c i e n t i n and of i t s e l f t o e s t a b l i s h a p e r c e n t a g e d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g . The Workers ' Compensation Judge approved t h e h e a r i n g e x a m i n e r ' s c o n c l u s i o n of l a w and emtered judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . T h a t judgment must be set a s i d e f o r i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e . T h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment of t h e Workers1 Compensation Court which awarded t h e c l a i m a n t Penny b e n e f i t s based on a f i n d i n g t h a t h e s u f f e r e d a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y to t h e whole man of 25% is vacated and t h e case is remanded t o t h e Workers Compensation Court to d e t e r m i n e what, i f any, p e r c e n t a g e of d i s a - b i l i t y Penny s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of compensable i n j u r i e s suf- f e r e d p r i o r to November 2, 1979. Chief J u s t i c e