Title: BEATTY v WELLMAN POWER GAS INC

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12792 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 MARTIN BEATTY, Claimant and Respondent, W E L L M A N P O W E R AND GAS, INC., and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE C O M P A N Y , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert J. Boyd, ~ u d g e presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: McKeon and Skakles, Anaconda, Montana Michael J. McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Scanlon, Brolin and Connors, Anaconda, Montana Jack M. Scanlon argued, Anaconda, Montana ;iJI,B 1% Filed: '* Submitted: May 7, 1975 Decided : JU& a 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . This i s a workmen's compensation case a r i s i n g from an i n d u s t r i a l accident t h a t allegedly occurred on November 13, 1972. Claimant Martin T. Beatty was employed a s a p i p e f i t t e r by Wellman Power and Gas, Inc. The Montana workmen's Compensation Division (hereinafter referred t o a s the Division) held t h a t claimant f a i l e d t o establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l accident had i n f a c t occurred and denied compen- sation. O n appeal t o the d i s t r i c t court, Deer Lodge County, additional evidence was presented and t h a t court found an indus- t r i a l accident had occurred and remanded the matter t o the Division f o r establishment of claimant's d i s a b i l i t y and determination of the medical payments and award due him. From the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment Wellman Power and Gas, Inc. and i t s insurer, Twin City F i r e Insurance Company, appeal. Prior t o the perfection of t h i s appeal claimant died from causes unrelated t o the accident. Martin T. Beatty claimed he suffered an i n d u s t r i a l acci- dent on November 13, 1972. Describing t h a t accident he t e s t i f i e d : I t W e were pulling a pipe with a come-along and it pinned m e against the wall." H e claimed he reported the accident t o h i s employer on t h a t date, November 13, 1972. The "~mployer's F i r s t Report of Occupational Injury o r ise ease" f i l e d with t h e Division on January 12, 1973, put the allegations of t h e claim i n issue by answering t h i s question on the form: "Describe i n f u l l how accident happened and GIVE CAUSE-- T e l l what employee was doing when injured: 11 A,. W e cannot describe accident because it was not reported t o t h i s o f f i c e , and we w i l l not acknowledge i t s happening on t h i s job. This report made per Hartford request. I t Claimant here, a former police o f f i c e r r e t i r e d on a t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y claim from the police pension fund, had f i l e d three p r i o r i n d u s t r i a l accident claims and a t t h e time of t h e alleged accident here had been the recipient of a settlement representing 233 weeks of compensation f o r a t o t a l of $10,500 received on April 27, 1972. The record iqdicates t h a t claimant did not seek medical a t t e n t i o n u n t i l November 22, 1972, nine days a f t e r the alleged injury, when he was admitted t o the Anaconda Community Hospital under a diagnosis of "pneumonia", with t h i s b r i e f history--patient admitted t o emergency room per wheel chair--complains of pain i n back--dyspnea--coughing--feet swollen--has been drinking f o r two weeks. Several issues a r e presented by both p a r t i e s on appeal. W e find t h i s issue dispositive: Did the d i s t r i c t court e r r i n reversing the ~ i v i s i o n ' s finding t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l accident had not occurred? W e note here t h a t i n Montana it i s c l e a r l y established the d i s t r i c t court is j u s t i f i e d i n reversing the findings of the Division only when there e x i s t s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evi- dence against i t s findings. IcAndrews v. Schwartz, 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379, 31 St.Rep. 517; Jones v. air's Cafes, 152 Mont.13, 445 P.2d 923; Stordahl v. Rush Implement Co., 148 Mont. 13, 417 P.2d 95. Consequently a detailed presentation of t h e evidence before t h e Division i s c r u c i a l f o r a proper disposition of t h i s case. The principal issue before the Division was whether claimant had, i n f a c t , suffered an i n d u s t r i a l accident with re- s u l t a n t injury as contemplated by section 92-418, R.C.M. 1947. To substantiate h i s claim an accident had occurred claimant intro- duced h i s own testimony and t h a t of Ed Darcy and Alvin Palmer. Ed Darcy, a co-worker with claimant on the date of the alleged accident, explained the accident i n t h i s manner: "Yes, I raised a piece of pipe, it seems t o m e it was p r e t t y heavy, i t was p r e t t y long and we were r a i s i n g it up and Beatty was holding on t o it and it was swinging and it i s vague, but I can remember the pipe swinging and him backing up against the wall. 1 I However, on cross-examination Darcy t e s t i f i e d : "MR. MCKEON: Ed, we had a telephone conversation two days ago, didn't we? A. Right. "Q. And you told m e a t t h a t time your p a r t i c u l a r version of the event, didn't you? A. I think I t o l d you t h a t I d i d n ' t remember t h e accident. "Q. You a l s o had a conversation with the adjuster from the insurance company, d i d n ' t you, sometime a f t e r the date of November 13, 1972? A. Right. "Q. And a t t h a t time I believe you t o l d the insurance representative----- "Q. A t t h a t time did you t e l l him you d i d n ' t remember anything about t h i s accident? A . I believe t h a t i s what I said. "Q. You said t h a t , didn't you? A. Yes. "Q. And a t t h a t time you said t h a t you believed t h a t no accident i n f a c t happened, i s n ' t t h a t correct? A . Well, l e t m e put it t h i s way the accident, it seemed so out 1 of proportion it didn t seem l i k e an accident, 1 didn't say anything. ?I S t i l l l a t e r during cross-examination, t h i s information was e l i c i t e d : "You received a phone c a l l from M r . Beatty some couple of weeks a f t e r the alleged accident, d i d n ' t you? A . Right. "Q. And a t t h a t time didn't you t e l l m e t h a t you f e l t t h a t M r . Beatty was trying t o coerce you i n t o saying there was an accident? A. No, I didn't say t h a t , I said he was trying t o influence me. "Q. Into saying t h a t there was i n f a c t an accident? A. Yes. I t Claimant's second witness was Alvin Palmer, foreman a t Wellman Power and Gas, Inc. He t e s t i f i e d he was not present when the alleged accident occurred but he had asked claimant l a t e r t h a t I I day i f he was sick o r something o r had a bad ha.ngover or some- 11 11 thing. H e further t e s t i f i e d claimant appeared t o have a stomach- ache o r out of wind o r something l i k e that.'' When claimant t e s t i f i e d on h i s own behalf, he explained the alleged accident t h i s way: "Well, i n pulling t h i s 14 inch c a s t iron over t h e top of the tanks and the other pipes why Charlie Hubbard said t h a t he didn't believe t h a t we could hold i t back without coming over the other pipes and we had a plank from the top over t o the wall on a beam and I was standing out on t h i s plank and when they raised it up and the f i t t i n g s come i n I couldn't hold it back and it backed m e up against t h e wall. I' Claimant a l s o t e s t i f i e d he was hospitalized on November 22, 1972, some nine days a f t e r the alleged accident occurred. However, the record indicates claimant's a f f l i c t i o n was diagnosed a s pneumonia a t the time of h i s hospitalization. D r . Howard Mize, Don Hornbacher, Jack Somers and Robert Wolf t e s t i f i e d f o r defendants. D r . Mize t e s t i f i e d he examined claimant subsequent t o the alleged accident when claimant was complaining of low back pain, d i f f i c u l t y i n h i s g a i t and lack of sensation i n h i s extremities; t h a t claimant had q u i t e an extensive h i s t o r y i n regard t o h i s back r e l a t i n g back t o 1967, when he was examined and treated by Doctors Sereen and Davidson. I n 1969, back d i f f i c u l t i e s again compelled claimant t o see D r . Trobough who gave him a 40% d i s a b i l i t y rating. Again, i n 1971 and i n 1972, claimant was treated by Drs. Simrns and Kanty i n regard t o h i s back. A l l of t h i s medical h i s t o r y was prior t o November 13, 1972, the date of t h e alleged accident involved here. In addition t o h i s testimony D r . Mize wrote a l e t t e r t o defendants' attorney which was received i n t o evidence by t h e Division. That l e t t e r stated: "In addition, i n view of t h e nature of the accident t h a t M r . Beatty described t o m e i t seems unlikely t h a t t h i s t r i v i a l injury i n i t s e l f could have produced a l l of the pathology t h a t M r . Beatty claims. I' Power Jack Somers, a foreman a t Wellman/and Gas, Inc. a t t h e time of the alleged accident, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was never n o t i f i e d about an accident. H e t e s t i f i e d : "Q. Were any phone c a l l s ever made t o you a f t e r the alleged accident? A. Yes. Q . W h o called You? A. M r . Beatty called m e and one of h i s lawyer's secretaries called me. I l Q. What did M r . Beatty say t o you? A. H e wanted t o know i f I could help him with h i s accident. "Q. What did you say? A. I said I knew nothing about i t because it never was reported t o me. "Q. Did he t r y t o t a l k you i n t o saying there was an accident? A. Yes. I I Finally, Robert Wolf, then general foreman of the pipe not crew a t Wellman Power and Gas, Inc., t e s t i f i e d he was/notified of an accident on November 13, 1972. H e further s t a t e d he had seen claimant a t the end of the work day on t h a t day and h i s condition was " ~ u s t l i k e everybody e l s e hurrying t o get t o the parking l o t Jc Jc * * " A.fter a l l evidence was submitted, the Division entered i t s findings of f a c t s and conclusions of law. It held t h a t the claimant did not s u f f e r an i n d u s t r i a l accident. Compensation was denied. Claimant then appealed t o the d i s t r i c t court. That court heard testimony of claimant and h i s wife, who did not t e s t i f y a t the Division hearing. Defendant Wellman Power and Gas, Inc. argues the wife's testimony was hearsay and t h a t defense counsel objected a t the hearing before the d i s t r i c t court. However, it is of i n t e r e s t t o note t h a t the wife acknowledged, during testimony, t h a t her husband's back problem predated t h e date of the alleged accident. The d i s t r i c t court reversed the findings of t h e Division. Reviewing a l l of the evidence, we believe the d i s t r i c t court erred i n reversing the findings of the Division. The evidence does not c l e a r l y preponderate against those findings. The inconsistencies and vagueness of claimant's witnesses, combined with the attempts t o influence t h e i r testimony and claimant's f a i l u r e t o see a doctor u n t i l nearly nine days had elapsed with the subsequent diagnosis of pneumonia, c l e a r l y support the ~ i v i s i o n ' s decision. The Division occupied a f a r b e t t e r position t o make the c r u c i a l factual determination of whether an i n d u s t r i a l accident had i n f a c t occurred. It could observe the demeanor of t h e witnesses and determine t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y . W e a r e cognizant of the r u l e t h a t the d i s t r i c t court may reverse t h e Division only i f substantial evidence c l e a r l y preponder- a t i n g against the findings i s introduced i n the d i s t r i c t court. Rumsey v. Cardinal Petroleum, Mont . 530 P.2d 433, 32 St. Rep. 1, and cases c i t e d therein. However, i n the i n s t a n t case, the additional testimony added l i t t l e o r nothing t o the testimony presented before the Division. Claimant r e t e s t i f i e d a s t o the f a c t s of the alleged i n d u s t r i a l accident but h i s testimony was merely a "rehash" of the testimony presented before the Division. Similar testimony met with disapproval i n Rasmussen v. Gibson Products Co. of Bozeman, M o n t . , 527 P.2d 563, 31 St.Rep. 860. claimant's wife a l s o t e s t i f i e d before t h e d i s t r i c t court. Her testimony was t h a t claimant had experienced pain i n h i s lower back on the date of the alleged accident. However, no e f f o r t was made t o determine i f the back pains were caused by the alleged accident or whether they were the r e s u l t of claimant's long history of back problems. W e find the other contentions raised by claimant t o be without merit. The d i s t r i c t court erred when i t reversed the ~ i v i s i o n ' s findings. The evidence did not c l e a r l y preponderate against those findings. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court is reversed and the cause is dismissed. We Concur: ------------ P ----------------- Justice