Case Title: CLEVELAND v CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-250

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-250 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 CURTIS CLEVELAND, Claimant and Respondent, -vs- CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, and FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants and Appellants Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable William E. hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Lyman H. Bennett, 111, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Komrners & Lineberger, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: September 11, 1981 . , . : ,% 1 - 1981 Decided : L J t LJ rJEC 1 - '198 Filed: - M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Employer, Cyprus I n d u s t r i a l Materials, appeals from a judgment i n Workers' Compensation Court awarding claimant permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r an i n j u r y amounting t o a 1 0 0 percent l o s s of use of h i s a r m a t o r near t h e shoulder. The s o l e i s s u e on appeal i s whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e award. W e a f f i r m t h e Workers' Compensation Court. Claimant i s a man i n h i s l a t e t h i r t i e s with a high school education, who had been employed by Cyprus I n d u s t r i a l Materials f o r f i f t e e n years and had worked h i s way up t o t h e p o s i t i o n of boilerman a t t h e t i m e of t h e accident. H e severely i n j u r e d h i s l e f t a r m i n a f a l l onto a catwalk on February 20, 1977. H i s employer was e n r o l l e d a t t h e t i m e of c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y under Compensation Plan I1 of t h e Workers' Compensation Act. The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e i n j u r y a r o s e o u t of and i n t h e course of c l a i m a n t ' s employment. The defendant accepted l i a b i l i t y and paid claimant t h e appropriate amount f o r temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y through J u l y 2 4 , 1979, a f t e r which defendant has paid claimant bi-weekly b e n e f i t s f o r a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y . O n J u l y 2 4 , 1977, defendant paid claimant $2,000 a s a lump sum payment t o be c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t f u t u r e b e n e f i t s a r i s i n g from a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g . Claimant has s u f f e r e d r e c u r r e n t pain i n h i s a r m s i n c e t h e accident. He has been t r e a t e d by s e v e r a l physicians and has t r a v e l e d t o S e a t t l e four t i m e s f o r diagnosis and treatment a t a pain c l i n i c there. He has been supplied with e l e c t r i c transcutaneous nerve s t i m u l a t o r s (TNS), which help relieve t h e p a i n i n h i s arm. Claimant i s purchasing a t r u c k , attempting t o r e h a b i l i t a t e himself, b u t i s n o t a b l e t o work r e g u l a r l y because any prolonged a c t i v i t y causes him severe, d e b i l i t a t i n g p a i n i n h i s l e f t arm. A d i s p u t e a r o s e between claimant and defendant about t h e e x t e n t of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y . The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e d i s a b i l i t y i s permanent, b u t defendant a l l e g e d t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s arm i s n o t 100% d i s a b l e d and claimant i s only e n t i t l e d t o d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s equal t o a percentage of t h e amount claimed. On February 8, 1980, claimant f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a hearing w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation Court. A hearing was held on J u l y 22, 1980, and f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment w e r e e n t e r e d f o r t h e claimant on March 4, 1981. The Workers' Compensation Court found t h a t claimant was " e n t i t l e d t o permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s equal t o t o t a l o r 100% l o s s of use of h i s arm a t o r near t h e shoulder." On August 5, 1980, i n a s e p a r a t e o r d e r , t h e c o u r t ordered a lump sum advance of $6,700 t o be c r e d i t e d toward b e n e f i t s t o which claimant i s e n t i t l e d . Defendant's p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g was denied and defendant appeals t o t h i s Court. Defendant maintains t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation Court t o support i t s award, arguing t h a t , without a showing t h a t t h e r e has been a t o t a l l o s s of usage of t h e i n j u r e d arm, t h e b e n e f i t s t o which claimant i s e n t i t l e d should be p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y reduced. Defendant urges t h a t , i f a f t e r review of t h e record, t h i s Court concludes t h a t t h e evidence supports a f i n d i n g of only p a r t i a l l o s s of u s e of h i s arm by t h e claimant, t h i s Court should r e q u i r e a p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e d u c t i o n of b e n e f i t s due claimant. Defendant relies upon medical evidence s u p p l i e d by an o r t h o p e d i c physician from Bozeman, who e s t i m a t e d an impairment t o t h e whole man of 40-50%, and a neurosurgeon from B i l l i n g s , who r e p o r t e d t h a t impairment of t h e e x t r e m i t y w a s approximately 40%, equaling a 24% impairment of t h e who1.e man. Defendant a l s o r e l i e d upon c l a i m a n t ' s own testimony t h a t c l a i m a n t was capable of d r i v i n g a t r u c k and u s i n g h i s l e f t arm t o some e x t e n t on "good days," f o u r o r f i v e days a week. Defendant refers t o t h e testimony of c l a i m a n t ' s w i f e t h a t c l a i m a n t has "some usage" of h i s l e f t arm. F i n a l l y , defendant r e f e r s t o t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t No. 1 1 and No. 12 which mention c l a i m a n t ' s extremely l i m i t e d and p a i n f u l u s e of h i s arm. These f i n d i n g s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e medical r e p o r t s and testimony, according t o defendant, a r e proof t h a t claimant i s capable of using h i s arm, does u s e it, and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t s u f f e r i n g from t o t a l l o s s of u s e of h i s arm. Defendant argues t h a t t h i s Court should f i n d t h a t c l a i m a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s of t o t a l l o s s of h i s l e f t arm, b u t only t o b e n e f i t s c a l c u l a t e d on a 40% l o s s of use of h i s arm. W e cannot agree. Defendant has n o t considered t h e d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t of t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by t h e c l a i m a n t when he i s a c t i v e ; nor has defendant considered t h a t t h e "good days" a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y days i n which claimant i s f r e e from p a i n and capable of doing t h e work a sound man could do. The f a c t t h a t claimant i s capable of using h i s arm t o some e x t e n t does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y mean he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s e q u a l - t o those g r a n t e d f o r 100% l o s s of t h e u s e of an arm. Nor i s t h e testimony of t h e p h y s i c i a n s a necessary y a r d s t i c k f o r determining t h e e x t e n t of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y . This Court has repeatedly s t a t e d t h a t medical impairment r a t i n g s alone a r e n o t conclusive proof of a p a r t i c u l a r degree of d i s a b i l i t y : " 'Many f a c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o medical impair- ment r a t i n g s may be properly considered by t h e c o u r t i n determining a c l a i m a n t ' s disa- b i l i t y . For t h i s reason, impairment r a t i n g s do n o t conclusively e s t a b l i s h l i m i t s on compensation awards i n a l l cases; r a t h e r , such medical impairment r a t i n g s by physicians a r e simply e x p e r t opinion evidence c o n s t i t u t - ing b u t one i t e m of evidence t o be considered along with o t h e r evidence presented.' Ramsey v. Duncan (1977), Mont., 571 P.2d 384, 385, 34 St.Rep. 1277. "Here, t h e Workers' Compensation Court con- sidered t h i s r a t i n g along with t h e o t h e r medical evidence and claimant's testimony about h i s pain and i n a b i l i t y t o do t h e same kind of work s i n c e t h e i n j u r y , and found c l a i m a n t ' s testimony more weighty and c r e d i b l e than t h e impairment r a t i n g . " Jensen v. Zook Bros. Const. Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 59, 64, 582 P.2d 1191, 1194. I n determining claimant's degree of d i s a b i l i t y , another f a c t o r must be considered, and t h a t i s pain. Robins v. Anaconda Aluminum Co. (1978), 175 Mont. 514, 521, 575 P.2d 67, 71. Furthermore, t h i s Court has upheld the award of permanent and even t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s when t h e i n j u r y i s grievous o r t h e pain severe, r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h a t a claimant has been a b l e t o do some work. Thus, i n Jensen v. Zook Bros. Const. Co., 178 Mont. a t 62-63, 582 P.2d a t "We hold t h a t t h i s evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e finding of t h e Workers' Compensa- t i o n Court t h a t claimant i s permanently and t o t a l l y disabled d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he can and has done various odd jobs. . . II I . . . a man with a s t i f f e n e d arm o r damaged back o r badly weakened eye w i l l presumably have a harder time doing h i s work w e l l and meeting t h e competition of young and healthy men. When a man stands before t h e Workers' Compensation Court with proven permanent p h y 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 c l a u s e has abolished a l l p o s s i b i l i t y o f common-law damages, it i s n o t j u s t i f i a b l e t o t e l l him he has undergone no impairment of 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. S u p e r l i n e Products (1978), Mont., 574 P.2d 251, 253, 35 St.Rep. 22. "Because c l a i m a n t can perform a few odd jobs f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e does n o t preclude a f i n d i n g t h a t claimant i s t o t a l l y and per- manently d i s a b l e d . This k e s p e c i a l l y t r u e where, as h e r e , the evidence shows t h a t t h e -- c l a i m a n t must work w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l degree ---- of pain. -- "Where t h e r e i s evidence of continuing p a i n from t h e i n j u r y , w e have s t a t e d t h e r u l e : "'The evidence shows t h a t . . . claimant cannot work without p a i n and he cannot endure t h e p a i n t o work. This c o n s t i t u t e s substan- t i a l evidence supporting a f i n d i n g of t o t a l permanent d i s a b i l i t y . ' Robins v. Anaconda Aluminum Co. (1978), Mont., 575 P.2d 67, 72, 35 St.Rep. 213. "Here, claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was s u f f e r - i n g from p a i n ; t h a t he could endure t h e p a i n i n h i s hand when he was n o t u s i n g it; b u t t h a t when he used it, t h e p a i n i n c r e a s e d and went up h i s arm. To do any job, c l a i m a n t would have t o use h i s hand and would be i n pain. The evidence shows t h a t he cannot work without p a i n and he cannot endure t h e p a i n t o work. " (Emphasis added. ) Claimant has t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s u f f e r s from s u b s t a n t i a l p a i n , which becomes d i s a b l i n g when he i s a c t i v e f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . H e has been informed t h a t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s permanent and could even d e t e r i o r a t e . When he i s a c t i v e even t h e TNS's f a i l t o a l l e v i a t e h i s p a i n , although c l a i m a n t u s u a l l y wears f o u r of them and c a r r i e s a b a t t e r y pack t o run them. Claimant a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he cannot hold a s t e a d y job because, when t h e p a i n i n h i s arm i s s e v e r e , he must t a k e hours, even days, o f f , doing nothing u n t i l t h e p a i n s u b s i d e s s u f f i c i e n t l y t h a t he i s capable of working a g a i n . I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t t h e r e is no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s considering the contents of medical r e p o r t s contained i n t h e case f i l e before the c o u r t . Stevens v. Glacier General Assurance Co. (1978), 176 Mont. 6 1 , 66, 575 P.2d 1326, 1329; Bond v. S t . Regis Paper Co. (1977), 174 Mont. 417, 4 2 0 , 571 P.2d 372, 374. The medical r e p o r t s contained i n t h i s c a s e f i l e include physicians' statements t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t ' s pain i s " p e r s i s t e n t , " "constant," and n o t l i k e l y t o respond t o normal therapy; t h a t claimant can s c a r c e l y go an hour without the T N S before experiencing severe pain, even on "good days;" and t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h i n h i s l e f t arm i s a f r a c t i o n of t h a t i n t h e o t h e r arm. The r e p o r t s f u r t h e r s t a t e t h a t , without a c t i v i t y , t h e p a t i e n t i s i n pain once o r twice a day f o r t h r e e t o four hours; t h a t claimant must keep t h e arm away from s u n l i g h t and h e a t o r extreme cold, and t h a t t h e T N S i s i n e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e pain when claimant i s a c t i v e . The r e p o r t s r e f e r t o claimant a s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e pain i s a t a " l e v e l which leaves him unable t o work and t h a t he consequently spends h i s days doing chores around t h e home t h a t a r e p o s s i b l e using one hand only." The Workers' Compensation Court judge had t h e medical r e p o r t s before him, a s well a s t h e testimony of claimant and h i s wife. The standard of review i n Workers' Compensation cases i s well s e t t l e d i n Montana: ". . . [Tlhis Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y held t h e t e s t of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence t o be whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . See Stamatis v. Bechtel Power Co. (1979), Mont., 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866; Head v. Larson (1979) Mont. , 592 P.2d 507, 36 St.Rep. 571; S trandberg v. Reber Company (1978) , Mont. , 587 P.2d 18, 35 St.Rep. 1742; Jensen v. Zook Brothers Construction Company (1978) , Mont. , 582 P.2d 1191, 35 St.Rep. 1066. I n Stamatis and Jensen, t h i s Court f u r t h e r held t h a t where t h e findings a r e based on c o n f l i c t i n g evidence, t h i s C o u r t ' s function on review i s confined t o determining whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evi- dence t o support t h e f i n d i n g s and n o t t o d e t e r - mine whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s . " L i t t l e v. S t r u c t u r a l Systems (1980), Mont. , 614 P. 2d 516, 518-519, 37 St.Rep. 1187, 1189. W e do f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court i n t h i s case. Under t h e s t a n d a r d s of review a r t i c u l a t e d above, w e d e c l i n e t o d i s t u r b t h e determination of t h a t c o u r t . Affirmed. @+dw J u s t i c W e Concur: P A 4 $ C Chief ~ u s c i c e