Case Title: LEARY v ANACONDA CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-02-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13436 IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF T I l E STATE OF MONTANA 1978 WILLIAM J. LEARY, Claimant and Appellant, THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, and THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Insurer and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Stephen M . Williams argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: January 30, 1978 FEB 2 i : 11i'd Decided. M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court : Claimant William J. Leary suffered a myocardial infarction a t approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. A t the time of the attack, claimant was employed as an electrician by the Anaconda Company a t i t s plant i n Anaconda, Montana. Claimant submitted a workers' compensation claim shortly thereafter; it was denied by his employer. O n November 18, 1975, claimant f i l e d a petition for hearing with the Workers' Compensation Division requesting a determination of the compensability of the claim. He further requested costs, attorney fees, and the penalty for the employer's refusal t o pay compensation pre- scribed by section 92-849, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing on the petition was held on January 21, 1976, i n the Workers' Compensation Court. O n M a y 24, 1976, the Court entered i t s findings of fact and conclusions of law denying the claim i n i t s entirety, on the basis that claimant failed t o demonstrate his heart attack resulted from unusual s t r a i n while engaged in work activity. Claimant appeals. A t the time of h i s heart attack, claimant was 53 years of age and had been employed as an electrician by the Anaconda Company for 20 years. For a period of four to five years prior to the heart attack, claimant worked a job known as the "swing job1'. Each week claimant worked two days a t the smelter stack substation connecting and disconnecting electrical switches; two days were spent a t the main substation taking meter readings and compiling reports, and one day he worked in plant maintenance. While engaged i n plant maintenace, claimant was available for work wherever an electrician was needed a t the smelter. O n December 11, 1974, while working plant maintenance, claimant and h i s partner, Thomas Brebrick, were sent t o the old phosphate plant t o disconnect two 2,300 volt switches. The old i n prior phosphate plant had not beenloperation for some time/ to December 11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature i n the building was approximately 30' t o 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy clothing. I n order to reach the switches, claimant and Brebrick climbed three t o four flights of s t a i r s . I n the process of obtaining lighting equipment and ascertaining that the power was shut down prior t o disconnection of the switches, claimant and Brebrick ascended and descended the s t a i r s several times. The switches were on wheels enabling them to be moved. To move the switches, claimant and Brebrick l i f t e d them over pieces of angle iron fastened t o the front of the wheels. Estimates of the weight of the switches ranged from 100 t o 300 pounds, t o a maximum of 800 pounds. The work a t the phosphate plant was completed shortly a f t e r 1 1 : O O a.m. Claimant experienced no ill feeling a t t h i s time. Claimant and Brebrick returned t o the foundry with t h e i r equipment and prepared for lunch. A t approximately 12:30 p.m., a f t e r finishing lunch, claimant began to experience a sensation of inability t o relax and, l a t e r , indigestion and pressure on h i s arms. Claimant returned t o the job, but rested u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended a t 3:00 p.m. Claimant then drove home and retired for the evening. The following morning, claimant was examined by D r . Huffman a t Community Hospital in Anaconda. The condition was diagnosed as a myocardial infarction, and claimant was irnmedia tely hospitalized. Claimant remained in the hospital f o r fourteen days. D r . Huffman treated claimant u n t i l March 17, 1975, when claimant was released to return t o work. Following h i s release, claimant submitted his claim for compensation. This action ensued from the denial of that claim. Claimant raises several issues on appeal. Critical t o the resolution of t h i s case is the determination of whether claimant's heart attack resulted from work related stress or strain. Section 92-418(1), R.C.M. 1947. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the workers' Compensation Court found: "That according t o medical evidence, the heart attack suffered over one and one-half hours a f t e r the cessation of work activity and a f t e r the claimant had eaten lunch, the work activity is not related to the heart attack.'' The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, as a matter of law, that claimant had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the job a c t i v i t y was the cause of the heart attack. The findings and conclusions demonstrate t h a t , i n determining the lack of causal relationship, the Workers' Compensation Court relied almost exclusively upon a l e t t e r submitted by D r . Walter J. Lewis 111, a Missoula cardiologist, who examined claimant some two months following the heart attack. The l e t t e r was written primarily as a response t o certain hypothetical ques- tions posed t o claimant's physician, D r . Huffman, i n the deposition of the l a t t e r . D r . Huffman indicated i n h i s deposition and i n other docu- ments before the workers' Compensation Court, that he found a causal relationship between the strenuous work activity involved i n climbing numerous f l i g h t s of s t a i r s and l i f t i n g heavy e l e c t r i c a l switches, and the heart attack. However, the hypothetical ques- tions posed, although assuming virtually a l l the relevant facts produced a t the subsequent t r i a l , established no time reference between the work activity and the heart attack. That is, the hypotheticals refer t o the symptoms of the attack occurring "shortly a f t e r the cessation of work activity." D r . Lewis, i n commenting on the hypothetical questions, indicates the time period elapsing between the cessation of work activity and the onset of symptoms i s c r i t i c a l . H e s t a t e s i f the heart attack occurred within one-half hour of the cessation of work, he could s t a t e the two were causally related. However, i f the heart attack, a s here, occurred one and one-half hours following the completion of the activity, they would not be causally related. W e note i n t h i s regard that neither physician t e s t i f i e d a t the January 21 hearing. While the findings and conclusions refer t o and appear t o be based upon the l e t t e r of D r . Lewis, nowhere i s any reference made t o the medical opinion of D r . Huffman. W e are unable t o ascertain from the findings and conclusions the basis for or reasoning behind the rejection of such opinion. Upon a thorough review of the record, w e therefore conclude there i s insufficient medical testimony t o support the findings and conclusions of the Workers' Compensation Court. The findings and conclusions are vacated and the cause is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Court with directions that additional medical testimony regarding the heart attack be taken. ing ~ k i e f us dice Justices .