Title: JONES v ST REGIS PAPER CO

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-179 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 TERRY JONES, Claimant and Appellant, vs. ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Employer and ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Hon. William Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Fennessy, Crocker and Fennessy, Libby, Montana For Respondent: Stephen C. Berg, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 1, 1981 Decided : DEC 3 I 19e1 Filed: lfEc 2 ? F 9 N 1 w C Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Claimant appeals from a judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation Court upholding defendant's d e n i a l of workers' compensation b e n e f i t s . The s o l e i s s u e before t h i s Court i s whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r a cornpensable i n j u r y within t h e meaning of t h e Montana Workers' Compensation Act, s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA. W e r e v e r s e t h e judgment of 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 and a year of college. H e worked a s a logger i n t h e C E T A program i n 1976, when he was s t r u c k by a f a l l i n g tree and i n j u r e d h i s back. I n 1977 he was h i r e d by S t . Regis Paper Company i n Libby, a lumber company e n r o l l e d under Plan I of t h e Workers' Compensation Plan. I n 1978 he was off t h e job f o r s e v e r a l months because of back problems a l l e g e d l y caused by an i n j u r y a t work which he believed might have aggravated t h e back i n j u r y he s u f f e r e d i n 1976. Defendant denied l i a b i l i t y and claimant p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workers' Compensation Court i n September of 1979. On August 5, 1980, t h a t c o u r t denied c l a i m a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r f a i l u r e t o a f f o r d defendant proper notice. Claimant d i d n o t appeal. J u d i c i a l n o t i c e was taken of t h e p r i o r claim by t h e Workers' Compensation Court during i t s consideration of t h e p r e s e n t c l a i m . Claimant's back problems caused him t o m i s s s e v e r a l months of work during spring and summer of 1978. H i s condition was diagnosed a s a "protruding d i s c " and claimant w a s given medication f o r pain and t o r e l a x h i s muscles. H e returned t o h i s work a s a lumber grader i n August of 1978, under a d o c t o r ' s o r d e r s t h a t he do no heavy l i f t i n g . A helper w a s assigned t o do any heavy l i f t i n g which was necessary during t h e month before t h e r e s t r i c t i o n was suspended. Claimant s t a t e s t h a t h i s back h u r t him constantly from t h e time of t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y i n March of 1978, and he frequently took valium t o c o n t r o l t h e pain. Claimant's job required him t o t u r n over pieces of green lumber with h i s l e f t hand, and grade them, a s they were conveyed along a waist-high t a b l e . The pieces of lumber varied i n length from e i g h t t o over twenty f e e t and i n weight from s e v e r a l pounds t o well over one hundred pounds. Occasionally t h e r e was a "jam-up," and claimant was required t o jump up onto t h e t a b l e and l i f t o u t t h e jammed boards. H e a l s o performed some cleanup and maintenance work around h i s machine when t h e r e was t i m e . When p o s s i b l e , claimant performed h i s l i f t i n g from a "duck-squat" p o s i t i o n t o p r o t e c t h i s back from pain and stress. O n June 28, 1979, claimant was examined by D r . Bohlman of Libby f o r "acute low back pain which [claimant] s a i d came on without provocation." D r . Bohlman deposed t h a t claimant ". . . s t a t e d t h a t he had had t h i s i n t h e p a s t s e v e r a l t i m e s , r a t h e r severely. . ." D r . Bohlman t r e a t e d him with valium and advised claimant t o use h e a t on h i s back and r e s t h i s back. Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t , near t h e end of h i s s h i f t i n t h e e a r l y morning of August 2 1 , 1979, he was turning a heavy p i e c e of lumber when he f e l t a sudden, sharp pain i n h i s back, s o severe t h a t it immobilized him f o r t h r e e t o f i v e minutes. When t h e pain subsided enough t h a t he could move, claimant s a i d , he resumed h i s work f o r an hour o r s o , with a s l i t t l e a c t i v i t y a s p o s s i b l e , u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended, a t approximately 2:00 A.M. He returned home without n o t i f y i n g a supervisor of any accident, took valium and went t o bed. When the pain was still p r e s e n t i n t h e morning, claimant attempted t o c o n t a c t h i s foreman, Gary Hansen, t o l e t him know he would m i s s work t h a t day. When he was unable t o c o n t a c t Hansen, claimant c a l l e d J e r r y McKay, maintenance supervisor of t h e p l a n t , and t o l d McKay he had h u r t h i s back and was going t o s e e a doctor. The f a c t s a r e disputed a t t h i s point. Claimant cannot r e c a l l mentioning an on t h e job i n j u r y , and does n o t r e c a l l McKay's asking him about an a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y a t work. McKay declared i n h i s deposition: "I d i s t i n c t l y r e c a l l asking him i f he had an a c c i d e n t a t work. . . H i s r e p l y was t h a t he d i d n ' t have an accident a t work. . . I don' t know i f he s a i d he d i d it doing something else. . ." McKay contacted c l a i m a n t ' s foreman, Gary Hansen, when Hansen came on s h i f t late t h a t a f ternoon. Hansen deposed t h a t McKay t o l d him an accident r e p o r t would n o t be necessary because "apparently he d i d it a t home . . . moving something, a r e f r i g e r a t o r o r something." Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had n o t moved a r e f r i g e r a t o r , o r any o t h e r heavy o b j e c t , away from t h e job. Claimant saw D r . Bohlman i n Libby August 2 1 , 1979, and D r . Bohlman immediately admitted him t o S t . John's Lutheran Hospital i n Libby, where he spent s i x days i n t r a c t i o n without any s i g n i f i c a n t improvement. D r . Bohlman's records do n o t mention whether claimant's back i n j u r y occurred a t work, nor does he remember t h a t t h e matter was discussed, although he s t a t e d i n h i s deposition t h a t it was h i s "usual p r a c t i c e t o s p e c i f i c a l l y inquire" a s t o t h e cause of a p a t i e n t ' s medical problems. The claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t he probably said his back was injured "that night," but he could not recall specifically stating that he had sustained an injury on the job. Claimant testified that at 4:15 P.M. August 21, 1979, just before going into the hospital, he called Gary Hansen and informed him he had hurt his back "that night" and was going to be hospitalized. Gary Hansen, in his deposition, denied that claimant contacted him; their only communication, according to him, occurred on August 30, 1979, when Hansen called to inquire after claimant's condition. At that time, no reference was made to the cause of claimant's injury. Gary Hansen's personal logbook, for the days following claimant's alleged injury, is marked with an "A," which Hansen said is the code for an accident suffered by an employee off the job. Claimant hitchhiked to Kalispell on August 27, 1979, and spent ten days in traction under the care of Dr. Ingham, again without significant relief of his discomfort. Dr. Ingham suggested that a myelogram and even a spinal fusion might be necessary; he referred claimant to Dr. Lynch in Spokane. Dr. Ingham's report indicated that claimant had back pain, went to work, and suffered increasing discomfort during his shift. The insurance report from the Kalispell Orthopedic Clinic, dated September 6, 1979, stated that the back injury was caused by a "sawmill accident" on August 21, 1979. Dr. Lynch in Spokane recommended a chairback brace, and, when that provided some relief, he recommended a lumbar fusion. His report stated that claimant's back injury occurred when claimant was working at St. Regis Paper Company. Surgery was performed by Dr. Shanks of Spokane on December 19, 1979. D r . Shanks' r e p o r t a l s o noted t h a t claimant sustained h i s i n j u r y while employed a s a machine operator a t S t . Regis Paper Company. D r . Shanks suggested claimant undertake a post-surgical therapy program t o build up t h e muscle s t r e n g t h i n h i s lower back and recommended t h a t claimant n o t r e t u r n t o h i s previous employment u n t i l h i s back muscles were stronger. D r . Shanks deposed t h a t during l a t e winter and s p r i n g of 1980, claimant was " t o t a l l y disabled" and t h a t , a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, h i s muscle s t r e n g t h had n o t improved t o the p o i n t t h a t he was ready f o r working. H e f u r t h e r deposed t h a t , from a medical standpoint, claimant should be permanently r e s t r i c t e d -- he should do no "heavy l i f t i n g , r e p e t i t i v e bending-type a c t i v i t i e s . " D r . Shanks was questioned about c l a i m a n t ' s "degenerative d i s c disease." H e answered: " ' [Dlisease' i t s e l f i s a misnomer. I t ' s more associated with chronic trauma o r a c u t e trauma with ruptured d i s c s and sudden narrowing of t h e d i s c space o r a narrowing of t h e d i s c spaces due t o degeneration of t h e d i s c due t o repeated small trauma. . . [Tlrauma i s i n j u r y e i t h e r major o r minor o r r e p e t i t i v e - t y p e i n j u r i e s . " D r . Shanks believed c l a i m a n t ' s condition was p r e s e n t p r i o r t o August, 1979. H e s t a t e d t h a t the continual bending and l i f t i n g done by claimant i n h i s job a t S t . Regis Paper Company would cause s t r e s s on t h e lower back, p a r t i c u l a r l y when claimant l i f t e d boards t o c l e a r a jam. He s a i d t h a t such s t r e s s could cause degeneration of an e x i s t i n g degenerative d i s c condition and could cause suddenly increased back pain. Claimant f i l l e d o u t a r e p o r t of occupational i n j u r y on August 31, 1979; t h e r e p o r t was received by S t . Regis Paper Company on September 6, 1979, w e l l within t h e 60 day n o t i c e requirement set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA. On October 30, 1979, Ken S t a h l , personnel s p e c i a l i s t with S t . Regis Paper Company, n o t i f i e d claimant t h a t S t . Regis d i d n o t recognize l i a b i l i t y f o r h i s back problem and refused l i a b i l i t y f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation Act. Claimant brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation Court on August 1 4 , 1980. The matter was heard on October 8, 1980, and on February 11, 1981, t h e c o u r t entered i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment. A motion f o r rehearing was denied and claimant appeals t o t h i s Court. Claimant r a i s e s only one i s s u e : 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 judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r a compensible i n j u r y a s defined by the Workers' Compensation A c t , s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA . I n i t s findings of f a c t , conclusions of law and judgment dated February 11, 1981, t h e Workers' Compensation Court found: "There i s no medical evidence t o support t h e proposition t h a t the claimant suffered an i n j u r y within t h e meaning of 39-71-119 MCA while i n t h e employ of S t . Regis Paper Company. "The preponderance of t h e c r e d i b l e evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back pain pre- dated h i s v i s i t t o D r . Bohlman and subsequent h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and was n o t aggravated by any event occurring on t h e job on t h a t date. The claimant apparently d i d n o t consider h i s pain t h a t day a s being a r e s u l t of an on t h e job i n c i d e n t , i n view of h i s d e n i a l t o M r . McKay and h i s f a i l u r e t o r e p o r t an i n j u r y t o D r . Bohlman, D r . Ingham o r Gary Hansen. "At a l l t i m e s p e r t i n e n t hereto t h e claimant w a s knowledgeable i n t h e b a s i c functioning of t h e workers' compensation system with regard t o t h e r e p o r t i n g of a c c i d e n t s and i n j u r i e s occurring on t h e job. H e had been a shop steward f o r h i s union and had attended many s a f e t y meetings a t which t h e s u b j e c t of t h e n e c e s s i t y of r e p o r t i n g accidents w a s discussed i n d e t a i l . H i s d e n i a l t o M r . McKay of t h e occurrence of an accident o r i n j u r y , coupled with h i s f a i l u r e t o inform h i s physicians and Gary Hansen of such an event, t o g e t h e r with p a s t medical evidence of low back p a i n being experienced seemingly without provocation a l l c o n s t i t u t e evidence t h a t no i n j u r y with- i n t h e meaning of 39-71-119 MCA occurred i n t h i s case." The bulk of d e f e n d a n t ' s argument i s devoted t o demonstra- t i n g t h a t , because of c l a i m a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o immediately n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s and physicians t h a t he was i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t on t h e job, t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t h a t he d i d n o t s u f f e r from " a t a n g i b l e happening of a traumatic n a t u r e . " Defendant a l s o t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t claimant cannot c o n s i s t e n t l y a l l e g e both t h a t h i s i n j u r y developed g r a d u a l l y and t h a t it was caused by a s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t . I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t when t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence supporting t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h i s Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b those f i n d i n g s on appeal. 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. Stamatis v. Bechtel Power Co. (1979), Mont. , 601 P.2d 403, 405-406, 36 St.Rep. 1866, 1869. However, i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t included above, and t h e arguments of defendant a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Montana c a s e law and t h e undisputed f a c t s set f o r t h i n c l a i m a n t ' s testimony-and i n d e p o s i t i o n s by c l a i m a n t ' s physicians. Much emphasis i s placed upon c l a i m a n t ' s " f a i l u r e " t o n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s t h a t he had been i n j u r e d i n an a c c i d e n t on t h e job. This f a i l u r e i s a c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r an i n j u r y and i s t h e foundation f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s argument on appeal. But t h e g r e a t preponderance of evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t , whether o r n o t claimant believed he s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y on August 21, 1979, whether o r n o t he mentioned an i n j u r y t o McKay and Hansen and D r s . Bohlman and Ingham, he was and i s i n c a p a c i t a t e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e trauma-induced, p r o g r e s s i v e degeneration of d i s c s i n h i s back, and t h a t c o n d i t i o n was aggravated by t h e unusual s t r a i n of h i s work. The n o t i c e requirement i n t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA, provides t h a t no claim such a s t h e one a t bar may be considered compensable u n l e s s n o t i c e of t h e t i m e , p l a c e , and n a t u r e of t h e i n c i d e n t i s communicated t o employer w i t h i n 60 days. There i s no requirement t h a t an i n j u r e d employee n o t i f y h i s s u p e r v i s o r s of an a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y w i t h i n hours o r days of i t s occurrence, however d e s i r a b l e such n o t i f i c a t i o n may be. Claimant's n o t i c e t o defendant t h a t he had s u f f e r e d an occupational i n j u r y was f i l l e d o u t by him on August 31, 1979, and received by defendant on September 6, 1979, less than t h r e e weeks a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y and w e l l w i t h i n t h e t i m e provided by s t a t u t e . The evidence presented by defendant t o support i t s argument t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r an i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y i s r e l e v a n t only t o prove t h a t f o r a few days a f t e r he l e f t work claimant may n o t have believed he had s u f f e r e d an i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y . Claimant's own testimony and h i s August 31, 1979, r e p o r t i n d i c a t e h i s confusion. Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s back had caused him c o n s t a n t p a i n f o r more than a year p r i o r t o August 21, 1979, and t h a t he was accustomed t o t a k i n g valium t o c o n t r o l t h e pain s o he could go on working. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he completed h i s s h i f t , he intended t o go home, t a k e some more valium and go t o bed, a s he had before. The back p a i n , while more severe than u s u a l , was n o t new. O n cross-examination, claimant was asked: "Q. Why, then didn' t you mention it t o somebody before going home? "A. Because I w a s i n pain and c o u l d n ' t f i n d anybody . . . I figured i f I go home and take some more valium I ' d be a l l r i g h t . . . [ I ] £ I f e l t good and was t h e same way I was before it happened, then I wouldn ' t need t o do any- thing; I ' d j u s t keep on." D r . Bohlman's r e p o r t and h i s deposition support c l a i m a n t ' s testimony t h a t he had suffered back pain f o r some time before he sought D r . Bohlman's help i n June of 1979. This evidence i s c o n s i s t e n t with D r . Shanks' d e p o s i t i o n , which w a s uncontradicted by defendant, t h a t t h e l i f t i n g and bending done by claimant a t work would s t r e s s h i s back and w a s l i k e l y t o cause degeneration and aggravation of an e x i s t i n g condition. Furthermore, D r . Shanks' deposition i n d i c a t e s t h e r e was no inconsistency i n c l a i m a n t ' s statements t h a t he had s u f f e r e d back pain f o r over a year, when h i s back suddenly gave o u t a s he l i f t e d a heavy piece of lumber. D r . Shanks s t a t e d t h a t " j u s t t h e l i f t i n g " would be enough t o cause sudden aggravation and suddenly increased back pain. The medical r e p o r t s and depositions submitted by t h e physicians who examined and t r e a t e d claimant show beyond doubt t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y was r e a l . H e s u f f e r e d from a "protruding d i s c " i n 1978, worked f o r over a year with i n c r e a s i n g discomfort, and, a f t e r August 21, 1979, was diagnosed a s having a "herniated d i s c " which required s u r g i c a l fusion. He had n o t recovered t o t h e p o i n t t h a t he could resume work a s l a t e a s J u l y of 1980, and w i l l probably never be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o h i s o l d job, o r any o t h e r job r e q u i r i n g a s i m i l a r amount of l i f t i n g and bending. Defendant has n o t argued t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r a herniated d i s c ; nor has defendant attempted t o prove t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s back condition diagnosed i n 1978 was n o t aggravated by h i s work. Both defendant and t h e Workers' Compensation Court appear t o have ignored the evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s work contributed t o t h e herniated d i s c . Ordinarily, t h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the Workers ' Compensation Court i n determining t h e weight and c r e d i b i l i t y t o be given testimony. The reason f o r t h i s i s 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 assessment of t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. However, when t h e c r i t i c a l evidence, p a r t i c u l a r l y medical evidence, i s entered by deposition, w e have held t h a t " t h i s Court, although s i t t i n g i n review, i s i n a s good a p o s i t i o n a s t h e Workers' Compensation Court t o judge t h e weight t o be given t o such record testimony, a s distinguished from o r a l testimony, where t h e t r i a l c o u r t a c t u a l l y observes t h e character and demeanor of t h e witness on t h e stand." H e r t v. J. J. Newberry Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 355, 359-360, 584 P.2d 656, 659. I t i s evident t o t h i s Court t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation Court paid l i t t l e heed t o t h e evidence submitted by c l a i m a n t ' s physicians, except t o determine t h a t D r . Bohlman and D r . Ingham had n o t noted t h a t an on t h e job i n j u r y had been sustained by claimant on August 2 1 , 1979. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t quoted above c o n t r a d i c t the statements i n r e p o r t s by D r . Lynch and D r . Shanks t h a t t h e i n j u r y was suffered by claimant during h i s work a t St. Regis Paper Company. I n finding of f a c t No. 16, t h e Workers' Compensation Court s t a t e d , "The preponderance of t h e c r e d i b l e evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s low back pain predated h i s v i s i t t o D r . Bohlman and subsequent h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n on August 2 1 , 1979 and was n o t aggravated by any event occurring on t h e job on t h a t date" (emphasis supplied) . That c o u r t ' s conclusion of law No. 2 s t a t e s , "The evidence shows t h a t claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r a compensable i n j u r y a s defined by 39-71-119 MCA, nor an aggravation of a pre-existing condition on August 2 1 , 1979 while employed by t h e S t . Regis Paper Company." Evidently, t h e Workers' Compensation Court d i d n o t consider D r . Shanks ' deposition testimony which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s e r i e s of minor traumas could lead t o a condition such a s t h a t suffered by claimant. Defendant dismisses D r . Shanks' testimony as "equivocal," and tending only t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s work " ' c o u l d ' have been caused by a traumatic experience along with o t h e r causes such a s degenerative d i s c disease." W e f i n d D r . Shanks' deposition more convincing. I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s d e f i n i t e statement quoted above, t h a t degenerative d i s c d i s e a s e w a s not a d i s e a s e , b u t a condition a s s o c i a t e d with a c u t e trauma, o r "repeated small traumas, " D r . Shanks t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e condition had, t o the b e s t of h i s knowledge, been p r e s e n t before August 2 1 , 1979. After t h e type of work done by claimant was described t o D r . Shanks, t h e following dialogue took place: "Q. NOW, with t h a t type of a [job] descrip- t i o n , do you f e e l t h a t t h e r e would be any kind of aggravation? "A. There's probably going t o be s t r e s s on t h e lower back with handling t h a t kind of lumber. I t ' s d i f f i c u l t t o handle, and I think you do have t o s t r e s s your back even though i t ' s up high and you're n o t bending over so much. But j u s t jacking it around i s hard t o do. "Q. Okay. So, more than l i k e l y , t h a t type of a c t i v i t y would cause some aggravation of t h e lower back? "A. I would think it would, yes." Counsel then described t h e work required t o f r e e a "jam-up," and asked: "Q. Now, would t h a t type of a c t i v i t y a l s o aggravate h i s back? "A. That would be even more so. "Q. Even more so. Okay . . . Would an i n d i v i d u a l with t h i s type of back condition which you have described be more s u s c e p t i b l e t o i n j u r y t o h i s lower back than a person without t h i s type of condition? "A. Y e s . "Q. Now, would a person with t h i s type of condi- t i o n be s u s c e p t i b l e t o a sudden aggravation of t h e condition? "A. W e l l , he could be, depending on t h e type of thing he was doing a t t h e t i m e . I f he, say, w a s up on top of t h e t a b l e t r y i n g t o s t r a i g h t e n o u t a 2 x 12, o r whatever t h a t had g o t t e n twisted, and he bent over and t r i e d t o pick t h a t up, he might suddenly g e t increased back pain, yes. "Q. Okay. Now, going back t o m y p r i o r example of a d e s c r i p t i o n of h i s work, n o t on top of t h e t a b l e b u t i n h i s normal operating p o s i t i o n , l i f t i n g a heavy board, would t h a t type of thing be c o n s i s t e n t with a sudden aggravation of t h e back? "A. Could be, yes. Same thing; j u s t t h e l i f t - ing. " I n Strandberg v. Reber Co. (1978), 179 Mont. 173, 175-177, 587 P.2d 18, 19, 20, t h i s Court held t h a t when it i s proved medically p o s s i b l e t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y aggravated a pre-existing condition, t h a t proof i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a compensable d i s a b i l i t y . S i m i l a r l y , i n V i e t s v. Sweetgrass County (1978), 178 Mont. 337, 340, 583 P.2d 1070, 1072, w e i n d i c a t e d t h a t evidence t h a t an a c c i d e n t aggravated a p r e - e x i s t e n t condition i s more r e l i a b l e than evidence t h a t an accident caused a disabled condition. I n Hoehne v. Granite Lumber Company (1980), Mont. I 615 P.2d 863, 865, 37 St.Rep. 1307, 1310, a case more nearly on p o i n t , we held t h a t " a t a n g i b l e happening" under s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, could be "not a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t . . . b u t r a t h e r a chain of accidents o r i n c i d e n t s , i.e., t h e stacking of lumber on a d a i l y b a s i s . " W e c i t e d approvingly E r h a r t v. Great Western Sugar Company (1976), 169 Mont. 375, 380-381, 546 P.2d 1055, 1058, which s a i d : "Not only must claimant show an unusual s t r a i n , b u t t h e s t r a i n must r e s u l t from a t a n g i b l e happening of a traumatic n a t u r e . . . A t a n g i b l e happening must be a p e r c e p t i b l e happening . . . Some a c t i o n o r i n c i d e n t , o r chain of a c t i o n s 7 - o r i n c i d e n t s , must be shown which may be per- - -- -- ceived a s a c o n t r i b u t i n g cause of t h e r e s u l t - - - -- i n g i n j u r y . " (Emphasis supplied.) - The l i n e s i n Hoehne, supra, w e r e c l e a r l y drawn. The s o l e d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t one p a r t y believed t h a t a gradually developing, job-related i n j u r y n o t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o one s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t was an " i n j u r y , " and t h e o t h e r believed it was not. This Court held t h a t it was. The reasonable conclusion from t h i s holding i s t h a t , i f t h e r e i s s t r o n g enough evidence t h a t t h e gradually developing i n j u r y i s job-related, it i s an " i n j u r y " within t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, and i s compensable, whether o r n o t claimant s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c incident. I t i s apparent t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation Court d i d n o t b e l i e v e claimant when he s a i d he s u f f e r e d a s p e c i f i c i n j u r y on August 2 1 , 1979. Evidently t h a t c o u r t d i d b e l i e v e c l a i m a n t ' s supervisors who deposed t h a t claimant had denied t h e r e had been an accident on t h a t d a t e . Claimant's d e n i a l of an a c c i d e n t i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o n s i s t e n t with our conclusion t h a t t h e c l e a r preponderance of evidence i n d i c a t e s claimant s u f f e r e d a s e r i e s of small i n j u r i e s i n t h e year before h i s breakdown, which i n j u r i e s were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o h i s work; those i n j u r i e s aggravated a pre-existing back condition and r e s u l t e d i n a herniated d i s c , t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , t h e subsequent s p i n a l fusion, and a c u r r e n t l y disabled condition, t h e e x t e n t of which has n o t y e t been determined. W e a r e mindful t h a t i n Hoehne, supra, t h e r e was no d i s p u t e a s t o t h e cause of claimant's i n j u r y , whereas here, evidence has been presented t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y occurred o f f t h e job, while he was moving a r e f r i g e r a t o r . Gary Hansen, t h e only person who mentioned c l a i m a n t ' s moving a r e f r i g e r a t o r a t t r i b u t e d t h e remark t o J e r r y McKay. McKay's deposition makes no reference t o causal f a c t o r s ; indeed, McKay could n o t r e c a l l such a discussion. Claimant himself t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had moved n e i t h e r a r e f r i g e r a t o r nor any o t h e r heavy o b j e c t . W e do not f i n d Hansen's a l l e g a t i o n r e l i a b l e ; it i s uncorroborated hearsay which, i f anything, i s contradicted by McKay. I t has l i t t l e f o r c e when considered a g a i n s t t h e f a r more convincing and c o n s i s t e n t explanation presented by claimant and strongly supported by D r . Shanks' and D r . Bohlman's depositions. I n summary, those f i n d i n g s of f a c t of t h e Workers' Compensation Court quoted above a r e d i r e c t l y contradicted by a preponderance of t h e evidence. Findings and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court, a s i n t h e case of D i s t r i c t Courts, may n o t stand when t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t such findings o r conclusions when viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g party. Hert v. J. J. Newberry Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 355, 359, 584 P.2d 656, 658-659. W e r e v e r s e and remand t h i s case t o t h e Workers' compensation Court f o r findings c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion, and f o r a determination of t h e compensation t o which claimant i s e n t i t l e d . W e Concur: k 4 Chief A J u s t i c e