Title: DAVIS v JONES

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

Xo. 84-354 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 JOHN A. DAVIS (FATAL) VIVIAN MARIE DAVIS, Claimant and Respondent, GEORGE W . JONES, Employer, and MOUNTAIN WEST FA,W BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPAYY , Defendaht 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: Joseph E. Engel, 111, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 28, 1985 Decided: June 13, 1985 --- Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Mountain West a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f t h e Workers' Compensation Court f i n d i n g employer and i n s u r e r l i a b l e t o claimant f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . T h i s i s a c o n t i n u a t i o n of a c a s e t h a t has p r e v i o u s l y been b e f o r e t h i s Court. I n Davis v. Jones (Mont. 1983), 661 P.2d 859, 40 St.Rep. 570, we held t h a t t h e employer, Jones, was estopped from a s s e r t i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s t o b a r c l a i m a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r compensation. The p r e s e n t a c t i o n i s an appeal from t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s determination t h a t Davis' f a t a l h e a r t a t t a c k was a compensable i n j u r y . Testimony i n d i c a t e d t h e following f a c t s : O n February 16, 1980, John Davis was working a s a ranch hand. One o f h i s d u t i e s was t o chop through t h e ice covering c a t t l e watering h o l e s s o t h a t t h e c a t t l e could d r i n k . To do t h i s , he used a d u l l ax t o break t h e ice and a shovel o r p i t c h f o r k t o rpmove t h e broken ice from t h e hole. H e would have t o chop a h o l e through t h e i c e two f e e t wide and t e n f e e t long. This a c t i v i t y u s u a l l y l e d t o Davis g e t t i n g w e t from t h e knees down, and otherwise was v e r y strenuous work. On t h e d a t e i n q u e s t i o n , t h e a i r temperature was somewhere between -10 and +20 degrees Fahrenheit, w i t h a wind c h i l l down t o -31 degrees. P r i o r t o 10:30 a.m. on February 16, Davis had a l r e a d y chopped one watering hole. Sometime d u r i n g t h a t morning he began t o experience a s e n s a t i o n l i k e a b r i c k on h i s c h e s t while chopping i c e t o make t h e second w a t e r i n g hole. One t i m e he passed o u t on t h e i c e and when r e g a i n i n g consciousness f e l t very cold. A t approximately 10:30 a.m., a f t e r Davis regained consciousness, t h e employer and a co-employee, Louis Velasco, found him s i t t i n g o r k n e e l i n g on t h e i c e and l e a n i n g a g a i n s t t h e handle o f h i s ax he used t o chop through t h e i c e . The employer spoke w i t h employee Davis who complained o f c h e s t pain and s a i d t h a t he did n o t f e e l w e l l . The employer suggested t h a t he l e a v e work and s e e a doctor. S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , Davis l e f t t h e water h o l e and proceeded t o h i s v e h i c l e . H e continued t o experience c h e s t p a i n , although less severe than o r i g i n a l l y experienced. B e t w e e n approximately noon and 1:00 p.m., he was s i t t i n g i n h i s v e h i c l e and c o n t i n u i n g t o experience moderate c h e s t p a i n . He d e c l i n e d t o h e l p a co-employee. Davis t o l d a n o t h e r co-employee t h a t he was going t o see a d o c t o r and t h a t he f e l t s i c k , a s though he had t h e f l u . A t approximately 1:00 p.m. t h a t day, Davis a r r i v e d a t t h e home o f Judy and Ralph Paddock. While s t a n d i n g i n t h e f r o n t yard, he complained t o Judy Paddock about having f e l t l i k e t h e r e was a b r i c k on h i s c h e s t while chopping ice, p a s s i n g o u t , and f e e l i n g very cold when r e g a i n i n g consciousness. H e complained o f s t i l l being c o l d , of c h e s t p a i n , and r e p e a t e d l y s a i d he wanted t o c a l l D r . Sidensticker. Other complaints were o f numbness i n h i s hands and aching i n h i s arms; and while he d i d s o he r o t a t e d h i s shoulders and arms. To Judy Paddock, he appeared p a l e , cold and "shook-up." In t h e Paddock house, Davis t o l d Ralph Paddock t h a t he had passed o u t while chopping i c e t h a t morning and t h a t r i g h t then he f e l t c o l d and had a c h e s t pain. Ralph Paddock t e s t i f i e d t h a t Davis appeared u p s e t , nervous and s c a r e d . Davis l e f t t h e Paddocks' house a t approximately 4:30 p.m. While d r i v i n g home he a l m o s t blacked-out t h r e e t i m e s and had t o s t o p h i s v e h i c l e on each o c c a s i o n . When h e a r r i v e d home a b o u t 7:30 o r 8:00 p.m., h e immediately asked h i s w i f e , t h e c l a i m a n t , f o r something c o l d t o d r i n k , complaining a b o u t having been t h i r s t y a l l day and a b o u t n o t having been a b l e t o g e t enough c o l d f l u i d s t o d r i n k . H e t h e n s a t down and drank approximately a g a l l o n o f ice t e a . H e looked t i r e d , g r a y and was shaking. H e t o l d h i s w i f e t h a t w h i l e chopping ice d u r i n g t h e morning he had passed o u t a f t e r e x p e r i e n c i n g c h e s t p a i n . H e a l s o complained o f h a v i n g "hard c h e s t p a i n s on and o f f a l l day." A l i t t l e b i t l a t e r w h i l e s i t t i n g a t t h e d i n n e r t a b l e , Davis complained o f c h e s t p a i n s and numbness i n one arm. H e d i d n o t f i n i s h d i n n e r . H e asked f o r something c o l d t o e a t and t h e n a t e two bowls o f ice cream. H i s w i f e r a n a t u b o f h o t w a t e r s o t h a t he could t a k e h i s u s u a l b a t h , b u t h e s a i d t h a t h e was t o o t i r e d , and t h a t he would r a t h e r l i e down. He t h e n g o t up from t h e d i n n e r t a b l e and went i n t o t h e bedroom. Soon a f t e r Davis l e f t t h e k i t c h e n and w h i l e h i s w i f e was removing t h e d i n n e r d i s h e s s h e h e a r d him moaning i n t h e bedroom. She e n t e r e d t h e bedroom and saw t h a t he had vomited. H e was r o l l i n g on t h e bed h o l d i n g h i s c h e s t and moaning, a c t i n g a s though he was u n a b l e t o g e t enough a i r . V i v i a n Davis, t h e c l a i m a n t , g o t h e r husband i n t o t h e f a m i l y c a r and t h e n drove t o a nearby g a s o l i n e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n . A s t h e y p u l l e d up t o t h e g a s s t a t - i o n , John Davis grabbed h i s c h e s t and s t a r t i n g g a s p i n g f o r b r e a t h and r o c k i n g . The c l a i m a n t a t t e m p t e d t o c l e a r h i s t h r o a t . He suddenly q u i t b r e a t h i n g . She gave him a r t i f i c i a l r e s p i r a t i o n and r e v i v e d him t e m p o r a r i l y . H i s h e a r t a t t a c k c o n t i n u e d , and s e v e r a l m i n u t e s l a t e r h e s i g h e d d e e p l y and d i e d . The Workers' Compensation Court found t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t d i e d of a h e a r t a t t a c k . It a l s o found t h a t h i s h e a r t a t t a c k began w h i l e h e was chopping ice t o make a second w a t e r i n g h o l e on t h e morning o f February 16, 1980 and c o n t i n u e d throughout t h e day and ended w i t h h i s d e a t h t h a t evening. O n t h o s e f i n d i n g s , t h e Workers' Compensation Court h e l d t h a t employer and i n s u r e r w e r e l i a b l e f o r c l a i m a n t ' s b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . A p p e l l a n t , Mountain W e s t Farm Bureau, p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r review: (1) Whether t h e r e was a c a u s a l r e l a t i - o n s h i p between John Davis' myocardial i n f a r c t i o n and r e s u l t i n g d e a t h and h i s work a c t i v i t i e s . ( 2 ) Whether, even assuming t h e r e was a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between John Davis' myocardial i n f a r c t i o n and h i s work a c t i v i t i e s , such myocardial i n f a r c t i o n i s a compensable i n j u r y under t h e Montana Workers' Compensation A c t . The Workers' Compensation Court h e l d t h a t t h e decedent d i e d from a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n and t h a t t h i s i n j u r y was s u f f i c i e n t l y work r e l a t e d s o a s t o b r i n g it w i t h i n t h e ambit o f t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . I n c h a l l e n g i n g t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t r a i s e s i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and weaknesses i n c l a i m a n t ' s c a s e , a l l e g i n g a n i n s u f f i c i e n t c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l a i m a n t ' s work a c t i v i t i e s and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . I n c o n s i d e r i n g such an argument, w e have f i r m l y adhered t o t h e view t h a t where t h e f i n d i n g s a r e based on conflicting evidence, this Court's function on review is confined to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings, and not to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support contrary findings . Little v. Structural Systems (1980), 188 Mont. 482, 614 P.2d 516; Jensen v. Zook Brothers Construction Company (1978), 178 Mont. 59, 582 P.2d 1191; see also Jones v. St. Regis Paper Company (1981), 196 Mont. 138, 639 P.2d 1140. We find that the Workers' Compensation Court's order was based on substantial credible evidence in the record. In a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, the Workers' Compensation Court addressed many factors that went into its decision. The claimant herself was found to be a very credible witness. The claimant's hypothetical question presented to each party's expert was found to be accurate. The claimant1 s medical expert was found to be more qualified and his opinion was accorded greater weight. Finally, the nature of decedent's work and the particular activity he was engaged in at the time the initial heart attack occurred lends support to the Workers' Compensation Court's order. Given the presumption of correctness that accompanies the Workers' Compensation Court's findings when they reach this Court, we will not overrule this order, Erhart v. Great Western Sugar Company (1976), 169 Mont. 375, 546 P.2d 1055; Hurlbut v. Vollstedt Kerr Company (1975), 167 Mont. 303, 308, 538 P.2d 344, 346; Hunt and Luinstra, "The Montana Workers' Compensation Court" 41 Mont.L.Rev. 1, 18, (1980). As to the second issue, we have in the past held that in certain cases heart attacks are cornpensable injuries under Montana Workers' Compensation Act. See, Rathbun v. Taber Tank Lines, Inc. (1955), 129 Mont. 121, 283 P.2d 9 6 6 , (compensation allowed); Dumont v . Wickens Bros. Constr. Company (1979), 183 Mont. 190, 598 P.2d 1107; Hurlbut v. V o l l s t e d t K e r r Company, supra; N e s s v. Diamond Asphalt Company (1964)" 143 Mont. 560, 393 P.2d 43, (compensation denied) . See a l s o Grosfiel d , Montana Workers ' Compensation Manual 53.40 (1979). The question o f whether an employee s u f f e r e d a job r e l a t e d " t a n g i a b l e happening o f a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from an unexpected cause o r unusual s t r a i n r e s u l t i n g i n . . . harm," s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, i s one of f a c t . I n t h a t regard t h e c o u r t must " r e l y on c r e d i b l e medical evidence t o determine" whether t h e i n j u r y i s compensable, Jones v. B a i r ' s Cafe (1968), 152 Mont. 13, 19, 445 P.2d 923, 926, see a l s o Dumont v. Wickens Bros. Constr. Company, supra, a t 205, 206, 598 P.2d a t 1107. The lower c o u r t i n t h i s case noted t h a t " i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e decedent was performing s t r e n u o u s p h y s i c a l l a b o r and . . . t h e medical evidence proved it caused h i s h e a r t a t t a c k . I' The Hurlbut c a s e , supra, upon which a p p e l l a n t relies i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s Court, quoting t h e medical w i t n e s s , noted t h a t he could - n o t s t a t e what was t h e cause o f M r . H u r l b u t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k and held: "Claimant f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden and t h e r e f o r e cannot q u a l i f y under t h e s t a t u t e f o r b e n e f i t s . " I n accord a r e Dumont , supra Hurlbut, s u p r a , N e s s , s u p r a , and Ra thbun , supra. Again, w e a r e presented w i t h t h e question of whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence on t h e record t o support t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s determination t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k was caused by h i s work. Experts t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f o f e a c h s i d e . Each e l a b o r a t e d upon t h e c a u s e o f d e c e d e n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k . The c o u r t h e a r d t h i s t e s t i m o n y , and h e l d t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t had e s t a b l i s h e d by a preponderance of t h e c r e d i b l e medical e v i d e n c e t h a t d e c e d e n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k was work r e l a t e d . W e f i n d 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 i n t h e r e c o r d and t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s , t h e r e f o r e , a f f i r m e d . W e concur: N / ' i J u s t i c e