Title: Richard Hinman v State Fund

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

FILED
Coetober 30 2007

DA 07-0033
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 278N

 

RICHARD D. HINMAN,

Poe Ape, FILED

 

v OCT 3 0 2097
MONTANA STATE FUND, Ed smith
cum oy
Respondent, Insurer and Appellee. Stare OF Mons

 

APPEAL FROM: — Workers’ Compensation Court, State of Montana
‘The Honorable James Jeremiah Shea, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant
Richard D, Hinman (Pro Se), Livingston, Montana
For Appellee:
Kevin Braun, Assistant Attomey General, Helena, Montana
‘Submitted on Briefs: October 17, 2007
Decided: October 30, 2007

Filed:
— Oy ae —
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
$1 Pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shal be filed asa public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included inthis Cours
‘quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Report.
{2 Appellant Richard D. Hinman (Hinman) appeals from the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Judgment entered in the Workers’ Compensation Court ofthe State
of Montana, denying him workers’ compensation benefits. We affirm

8 Hinman worked as an auto mechanic, body repairer, welder, and painter for
Specialized Automotive from May 2003 through August 2003. Approximately eighteen
‘months later, on January 28, 2005, Rebecea Canner, M.D., diagnosed Hinman with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Hinman believed that his development of COPD
related to his exposure to chemicals during his time of employment at Specialized
‘Automotive. Dr. Canner and two other doctors conducted further evaluations and tests on
Hinman during February and March of 2005. None of the doctors offered an opinion
regarding the cause of Hinman’s COPD. The doctors merely reported a history of exposure

to toxic chemicals as provided by Hinman,

 

$4 Hinman filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Montana State Fund, the
insurer for Specialized Automotive, requested that John Schumpert, M.D., perform an
independent medical examination on Hinman. Dr. Schumpert reviewed the medical records

2
provided by Hinman, took a medical history from Hinman, and performed a physical
‘examination, Hinman revealed in his medical history that he had smoked approximately wo
packs of cigarettes a day for the last twenty years. Dr. Schumpert concluded that Hinman's
smoking was the proximate cause of Hinman’s COPD. Dr. Schumpert noted that the high
resolution CT scan failed to reveal objective evidence of any other causes of his current
pulmonary complaints. The Workers’ Compensation Court entered Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Judgment denying Hinman’s claim for workers’ compensation
benefits on January 5, 2007. Hinman appeals.

{5 Hinman, appearing pro se, argues that his exposure to unspecified toxic chemicals
during his brief employment with Specialized Automotive caused him to contract COPD.

Montana State Fund counters that Hinman failed to carry his burden of proof in establishing

 

that his three-month employment stint at Specialized Automotive caused his COPD
condition.

{6 We review a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Court to determine whether
substantial evidence supports the findings and conclusions of that court. Wood
Consolidated Freight Ways, Inc., 248 Mont. 26, 28, 808 P.2d 502, 504 (1991). We do not

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court as to the weight of the evidence on

 

questions of fact. Wood, 248 Mont. at 28, 808 P.2d at 504, We will not overturn a decision
of the Workers” Compensation Court where substantial evidence supports it. Wood, 248
Mont, at 28, 808 P.2d at 504, We review the legal conclusions reached by the Workers”

Compensation Court to determine whether the conclusions are correct. Stordalen v. Ricet's
Food Farm, 261 Mont. 256, 258, 862 P.24 393, 394 (1993). We have determined to decide
this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as
amended in 2003, that provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the
briefs and the record before us that substantial evidence supports the Workers’ Compensation
Court’s Findings of Fact, and thatthe legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana
Jaw and that the Workers’ Compensation Court correctly interpreted it.

7 Weaffirm the Judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court.

We Concur

    
   

Justices