Case Title: FROST v ANACONDA CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-313

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-313 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 ODEAN L. FROST, Claimant and Respondent, -vs- THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Employer-Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Utick, Grosfield & Uda; Andrew J. Utick, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Neil J. Lynch & R. Lewis Brown, Butte, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 21, 1985 Decided: June 25, 1985 JU& . i 1 4 y s Filed : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l by Anaconda Aluminum Company, from a judgment i n f a v o r o f c l a i m a n t , Odean L. F r o s t , by t h e Workers' Compensation Court. On October 21, 1974, c l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d w h i l e c l i m b i n g down an ore s h o v e l o p e r a t i n g i n Anaconda Company's mine i n B u t t e , Montana. Claimant s l i p p e d from a l a d d e r on t h e o r e s h o v e l , l a n d i n g on t h e t r a c k o f t h e s h o v e l w i t h h i s lower back. Immediately a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , h e e x p e r i e n c e d a b u r n i n g s e n s a t i o n i n h i s lower back. Claimant worked t h e remaining s i x h o u r s o f h i s s h i f t . Claimant r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r b u t d i d n o t immediately seek medical a t t e n t i o n . Claimant continued working f o r s e v e n t e e n months u n t i l h e f i r s t sought t r e a t m e n t because o f c o n t i n u e d back p a i n and diminished c o n t r o l o v e r h i s l e f t l e g and f o o t . O n March 9 , 1976, D r . Buehler examined t h e c l a i m a n t . D r . Buehler diagnosed c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n a s an L5-S1 h e r n i a t e d d i s c . I n August o f 1976, D r . Buehler performed a l e f t L5-S1 disectomy. Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e back and l e g d i s c o m f o r t c o n t i n u e d a f t e r t h e s u r g e r y . I n March o f 1976, t h e p e r s i s t e n t p a i n f o r c e d c l a i m a n t t o c e a s e working f o r Anaconda Company. Claimant r e c e i v e d b e n e f i t s from Anaconda Company's "METRO" program, i n l i e u o f Workers' Compensation from A p r i l o f 1976 u n t i l A p r i l o f 1983, on which d a t e a l l b e n e f i t s w e r e t e r m i n a t e d . Claimant had n o t f i l e d a c l a i m f o r Workers' Compensation w i t h i n one y e a r f o l l o w i n g t h e d a t e o f h i s i n j u r y . The Workers' Compensation Court f o r b a d e Anaconda Company from a s s e r t i n g t h e one y e a r s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a s a b a r t o c l a i m a n t ' s r e c o v e r y o f b e n e f i t s . T h i s C o u r t affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court's decision in Frost v. Anaconda Company ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 1 9 8 Mont. 2 1 6 , 6 4 5 P. 2d 4 1 9 , and held that the employer's payment of "benefits substantially comparable to or greater than the benefits available to the . . . employee under the Workers' Compensation Act" tolled the statute of limitations for filing his claim. On June 1 3 , 1 9 8 3 , a second hearing was held before the Workers' Compensation Court. The claimant was awarded permanent total disability benefits. Anaconda Company appeals from the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court. The issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that the claimant is entitled to compensation for permanent total disability. The basic premise of Anaconda Company's appeal is that the claimant failed to meet his burden of establishing a causal relationship between the industrial accident and claimant's low back and leg condition. The Workers' Compensation Court determined that the claimant established causality: "The cause of the herniated disc and the surgery it necessitated was the claimant's October 2 1 , 1 9 7 4 industrial accident . . . the cause of the claimant's continuing back and leg pain is the herniated disc he suffered in his October 2 1 , 1 9 7 4 , industrial accident or from the scarring in the area of the L5-S1 disc protrusion." Anaconda Company argues that there is a total absence of medica 1 proof to support a finding of causal relationship. Anaconda Company argues that the Workers' Compensation Court improperly relied on claimant's testimony. Anaconda Company further maintains that because the claimant was in error when he testified as to the first date he saw a doctor that this was intentional and made his testimony inherently incredible. The testimony of two witnesses, Charles E . Buehler, M.D. and the claimant, is critical to the determination of the existence of causal relationship. Anaconda Company submits, because Dr. Buehler's testimony was by deposition, the standard of review should be governed by Sbupert v. Anaconda Aluminum Company (Mont. 1985), 696 P.2d 436, 42 If I . . . when the critical evidence, particularly medical evidence, is entered by deposition, we have held that "this Court, although sitting in review, is in as good a position as the Workers1 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."'" (Citations omitted.) 696 P.2d at 439. We will adhere to this standard in reviewing Dr. Buehler's deposition testimony. However, in reviewing the testimony of the claimant, deference will be accorded to the Workers1 Compensation Court's findings as to weight and credibility. Section 39-71-119 (I), MCA in pertinent part defines an injury as: "a tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an unexpected cause or unusual strain resulting in either external or internal physical harm and such physical condition as a result therefrom and excluding disease not traceable to injury . . . " The claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that he suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of employment; and ( 2 ) that such injury was the proximate cause of his disabling condition. Viets v. Sweet Grass County (1978), 178 Mont. 337, 583 P.2d 1070. See a l s o , McQuiston v. Hubbard ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 423, 539 P.2d 380; V e t c h v. Helena T r a n s f e r and S t o r a g e Co. ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 106, 460 P.2d 757. The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w f o r medical p r o o f o f c a u s a t i o n c a s e s h a s b e e n set f o r t h i n e a r l i e r cases. I n V i e t s "Medical p r o o f o f c a u s a t i o n o f a n i n j u r y must b e g r e a t e r t h a n ' p o s s i b l e ' i n Workers' Compensation c a s e s . C l a r k v. H i l d e C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 576 P.2d 1112, 35 St.Rep. 353; E r h a r t v . G r e a t Western S u g a r Company ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 375, 546 P.2d 1055; McAndrews v. Schwartz v . G l a c i e r G e n e r a l A s s u r a n c e Co. ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379; S t o r d a h l v. Rush Implement Co. ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 1 3 , 417 P.2d 95; L a F o r e s t v. Safeway S t o r e s (1966) , 147 Mont. 431, 414 P.2d 200." D r . B u e h l e r ' s t e s t i m o n y set f o r t h m e d i c a l symptomatology from which t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t c o u l d f a i r l y c o n c l u d e t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d s u f f e r a n i n j u r y : (i) Upon r e f e r r a l by D r . B u e h l e r , c l a i m a n t r e p o r t e d t o c o n s u l t i n g p h y s i c i a n s , D r . Alexander Johnson and D r . Cooney, t h a t h e t o o k a f a l l a t work. S i n c e t h e i n j u r y h e h a s i n c r e a s i n g l y s u f f e r e d back p a i n r a d i a t i n g t o h i s l e f t lower e x t r e m i t y . (ii) D r . B u e h l e r performed a myelogram and d i a g n o s e d t h e c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n a s a n L5-S1 h e r n i a t e d d i s c . (iii) D r . B u e h l e r performed a l e f t L5-S1 d i s e c t o m y . ( i v ) D r . B u e h l e r n o t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d t o e x p e r i e n c e back and l e g p a i n . The p a i n would i n c r e a s e w i t h p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . D r . B u e h l e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e p a i n was s e c o n d a r y t o t h e p r o l o n g e d d u r a t i o n o f h i s h e r n i a t e d d i s c o r t o s c a r r i n g i n t h e a r e a o f t h i s d i s c p r o t r u s i o n . (v) D r . B u e h l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t c l a i - m a n t ' s back and a s s o c i a t e d l e g c o n d i t i o n i s permanent. The Anaconda Company has failed to produce any evidence, medical or otherwise, as to the specific cause of claimant's injury. Anaconda Company called no medical witness to disprove causation. The record shows that the claimant had no previous back problems or a history of injury that might even remotely affect his back. Prior to the accident, he was able to perform his job with no orthopedic problems. Dr. Buehler informed Anaconda Company that claimant could not return to heavy labor. The claimant testified that the increased pain associated with physical activity made it difficult for him to walk, to bend or even to climb stairs. The claimant further testified that he presently takes muscle relaxants and analgesics for pain. Anaconda Company maintains that the Workers ' Compensation Court erred in considering claimant's testimony of his continued pain following the accident. We have long recognized the Workers' Compensation Court's right to rely on the testimony of the claimant. McCormack v. Sears-Roebuck & Co. (Mont. 1984), 682 P.2d 1357, 41 St.Rep. 979; Robins v. Anaconda Aluminum Co. (1978), 175 Mont. 514, 575 P.2d 67. The Workers' Compensation Court's own finding that the claimant was a credible witness and not a malingerer further discounts Anaconda Company's allegation. The record shows a conscientious working man, who although injured on the job, chose to complete his work day and endure pain for six additional hours. The fact that he did not seek medical attention for seventeen months following the accident does not lessen the injury nor minimize the pain he experienced. The medical evidence, including Dr. Buehler's testimony and the herniated disc trauma itself, establishes a firm basis for claimant's complaints of pain. We hold the record supports the Workers' Compensation Court's findings and conclusions that a causal relationship between the accident and the resulting physical disability was sufficiently established. Accordingly, the judgment of the Workers ' Compensation Court is affirmed. Justic s 7 '