Case Title: LAMB v MISSOULA IMPORTS INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 83-538

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1984-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 83-538 IN THE SUPWME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1984 RUSSELL A. LAMB, Claimant and Respondent, -vs- MISSOULA IMPORTS, INC., Employer, and UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: The Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant : Garlington, Lohn & Robinson; Robert E. Sheridan, Missoula, Montana For Respondent : Williams Law Firm; Susan Roy, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 1984 Decided: July 26, 1984 Clerk Mr. Justice John Conway Na.rrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Appellants raise this appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court's findings, conclusions and ruling that respondent's epileptic seizures stemmed from an industrial accident and thereby were compensable. Missoula Imports employed Russell Lamb as a janitor. On the evening of September 11, 1978, as Lamb was washing the floor, he slipped and fell striking his head on the floor. He claims he remembers little or nothing during the few hours following his fall. Lamb called his girlfriend and told her of the accident. His parents picked him up at the workplace and took him to the hospital emergency room for treatment. Dr. McMullin diagnosed him as having had a mild concussion and sent Lamb home with instructions to contact him if complications arose. Both of his parents observed him during the next several days. Mrs. Lamb testified as to the memory problems on respondent's part which extended to more than twenty-four hours after the accident. He kept asking the same question as to what had happened and had apparently been unable to remember the answers given to him in previous days. In February, 1979, respondent went to Dr. Johnson (a neurologist). Dr. Johnson performed an electroencephalogram and determined respondent suffered from epilepsy. He prescribed medication to control the seizures. However, respondent continued to have occasional seizures. On March 9, 1982, he suffered a seizure while driving his car on Brooks Street in Missoula, Montana. Witnesses reported that his car veered off to the right and hit a tree i n a l o c a l park. Respondent c l a i m s he remembers n o t h i n g of t h e a c c i d e n t o r t h e e v e n t s l e a d i n g up t o t h e a c c i d e n t and remained i n an i n t e n s i v e c a r e u n i t f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e l e n g t h of t i m e . Respondent's mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had never had any i n d i c a t i o n of a p r i o r e p i l e p t i c s e i z u r e . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t no one i n t h e f a m i l y had e v e r had any h i s t o r y of e p i l e p t i c s e i z u r e s . Following t h e f i l i n g of t h e c l a i m , t h e p a r t i e s took d e p o s i t i o n s from t h r e e d o c t o r s r e g a r d i n g t h e c a u s e o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s s e i z u r e s . Even though D r . Johnson concluded t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t probably d i d n o t cause r e s p o n d e n t ' s s e i z u r e s , he d i d admit t h e r i s k f a c t o r of e n c o u n t e r i n g s e i z u r e s a s t h e r e s u l t of t h e t y p e of head i n j u r y s u s t a i n e d by respondent was somewhere between one and t h r e e p e r c e n t . Dr. Dewey ( a n e u r o s u r g e o n ) , a f t e r reviewing a l l of t h e medical d a t a and r e l a t e d i n f o r m a t i o n , concluded t h e s l i p and f a l l p r o b a b l y c a u s e d t h e s e i z u r e s . Dr. B e r t r a n d ( a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n e x p e r t f o r s e i z u r e and t r a u m a p a t i e n t s ) expressed her b e l i e f t h a t t h e head i n j u r y i n c u r r e d from t h e f a l l caused t h e s e i z u r e s . The Workers' Compensation C o u r t , f o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g , determined r e s p o n d e n t ' s f a l l a t Missoula Imports was t h e d i r e c t and p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f t h e s e i z u r e d i s o r d e r . A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e t h e i r a p p e a l from t h a t o r d e r . W e a f f i r m . A p p e l l a n t s r a i s e one i s s u e on a p p e a l . Did s u f f i c i e n t evidence e x i s t t o s u p p o r t t h e Workers' Compensation Cour t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t c o n s t i t u t e d t h e proximate c a u s e of r e s p o n d e n t ' s s e i z u r e s ? A p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a t i v e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o prove r e s p o n d e n t ' s f a l l a t Missoula Imports caused h i s s e i z u r e s . They d i r e c t t h i s Court t o examine t h e meilical e v i d e n c e , and accord it t h e p r o p e r weight. They b e l i e v e t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t merely caused a mild concussion and f a i l e d t o cause t h e s e i z u r e s . W e d i s a g r e e . W e s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d f o r review f o r s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence i n L i t t l e v. S t r u c t u r a l Systems ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 614 P.2d " F i r s t o f a l l , i n e x a m i n i n g t h e c o n t e n t i o n s b y t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a p p e a l , it should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h e t e s t of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o be 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 t o s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . See S t a m a t i s v. B e c h t e l Power Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont., 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866; Head v. Larson ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont., 592 P.2d 507, 36 St.Rep. 571; S t r a n d b e r g v. Reber Company ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 587 P.2d 1 8 , 35 St.Rep. 1742; J e n s e n v. Zook B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 582 P.2d 1191, 35 St.Rep. 1066. I n S t a m a t i s and J e n s e n , t h i s Court f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t w h e r e t h e f i n d i n g s a r e b a s e d on c o n f l i c t i n g 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 r e v i e w is c o n f i n e d t o 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 t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and n o t t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t zvidence t o s u p p o r t c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s . " I n J o n e s v. S t . R e g i s Paper Co. ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 196 Mont. 138, 639 P.2d 1140, w e s a i d t h i s Court may d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r w e i g h t o f c r i t i c a l m e d i c a l t e s t i m o n y e n t e r e d t h r o u g h d e p o s i t i o n s : " O r d i n a r i l y , t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e weight and c r e d i b i l i t y t o be g i v e n testimony. The r e a s o n f o r t h i s is t h a t t h i s Court d e f e r s t o t h e lower c o u r t ' s a s s e s s m e n t of t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y of w i t n e s s e s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. However, when t h e c r i t i c a l e v i d e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y medical e v i d e n c e , is entered by deposition, we have held that ' this Court, although sitting in review, is in as good a position as the Workers ' Compensation Court to judge the weight to be given to such record testimony, as distinguished from oral testimony, where the trial court actually observes the character and demeanor of the witness on the stand. ' " Hert v. J.J. Newberry Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 355, 359-360, 584 P.2d 656, 659. Appellants stress this Court should give Dr. Johnson's testimony the most weight because he is the most qualified expert witness. His testimony that it is unlikely the fall caused respondent's seizures proves appellant's contention that no connection exists between the industrial accident and the subsequent seizures. We reject this argument. In careful examination of the deposition by the three medical experts, it is clear to this Court that medical science remains sufficiently undeveloped in the area of epilepsy and seizures to rely on any one witness's statements as dispositive. In Conway v. Blackfeet Indian Developers, Inc. (Mont. 1983), 669 P.2d 225, 40 St. Rep. 1427, we followed the rationale of Moffet v. Bozeman Canning Co. (1933), 95 Mont. 347, 26 P.2d 973. In both of those cases medical testimony failed to definitively state that the industrial accident caused the subsequent affliction. We stated: "'The record contains no direct evidence from which it can be said that the injury was the proximate cause of claimant's present condition; this, not because of failure on the part of claimant properly to present his case, but because, on the frank admission of the doctors, no man on earth knows positively the exact cause of such an affliction in any given case; medical science has not advanced to a point where it can positively trace back from the effect and declare the cause of the disease in a given patient, but this fact alone need not bar the claimant from recovery, if, on the record, it can be said that he is entitled thereto."' 669 P.2d at 228. A review of the medical experts' depositions reveals that none of the doctors deposed respondent at the time of the industrial accident. Dr. Johnson assumed respondent merely suffered a mild concussion which most likely would not cause the seizures. However, that type of testimony must be compared to the testimony of the other physicians who considered the memory lapses demonstrated by the respondent and his epileptic seizures which have followed. Dr. Dewey stated he believed the accident a much more severe trauma and that be believed the accident at Missoula Imports was the probable cause of the epilepsy. Dr. Bertrand believed the accident caused the seizures. These experts all appeared sufficiently qualified to render their opinion in this matter. When these two physicians considered all the facts of the case they concluded there was a significant probability the epileptic seizures were the result of the industrial accident. Based on this evidence, we can only conclude that substantial medical evidence exists to support the Workers' Compensation Court's findings. We see no reason to accord Dr. Johnson's testimony any greater weight than the testimony of the other two doctors. He demonstrated no substantially greater understanding of this topic than the other witnesses. We affirm the Workers' Compensation Court. W e concur: 9 A & $ & d d 4 C h i e f J u s t i c e