No. 13639 

IN THE SUPREP?E COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1977 

LESLIE A. BOND, 

Claimant and Respondent, 

-vsST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, Employer, 

and 

ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, 

William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Warden, Walterskirchen and Christiansen, Kalispell, 

Montana 

Merritt N. Warden argued, Kalispell, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Joe Roberts argued, Libby, Montana 

Submitted: October 6, 1977 

Decided : NQV - 4 1977 

\I . - 2 -:-- A Filed: 
Mr. Chief Justice Paul G. Hatfield delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Employer, St. Regis Paper Company, enrolled under Plan 

I of the Workers' Compensation Act, appeals from a Workers' 

Compensation Court award to claimant of temporary total disability benefits, medical costs and attorney fees. 

The employer hired claimant in 1973 to perform tasks 

requiring physical labor. In August, 1975, claimant's left 

wrist was injured during work. Upon consulting a doctor, claimant was advised that he had tendonitis and to rest the wrist for 

a few days. Following, in October, 1975, the same wrist was 

again injured during work. X-rays were taken revealing an old, 

un-united fracture in the left wrist. Claimant was referred to 

a bone specialist who advised that the wrist needed surgical 

treatment. Bone grafting was done in November, 1975. Claimant 

did not return to regular work until June, 1976. 

In December, 1975 claimant filed a Workers' Compensation 

claim. The claim was denied by the employer. A hearing was then 

held before the Workers' Compensation Court and compensation was 

awarded to claimant. From this award employer appeals. 

Employer raises this issue on appeal: 

Was the Workers' Compensation Court justified in adopting conclusions of law to the effect that the claimant's injuries 

aggravated a pre-existing condition, that claimant was entitled 

to compensation benefits by reason thereof, that claimant was 

entitled to payment of medical costs incident to bone grafting 

procedures for a pre-existing condition, and to attorney fees 

and costs? 

Employer argues that the incidents of August and October, 

1975, were not of such a nature and severity as to cause injuries 

to claimant which made the bone grafting necessary or medically 

advisable. The main question, therefore, is whether any medical 
evidence exists to support the findings of the trial court 

that aggravation of a pre-existing injury occurred. Employer 

contends there was no medical testimony to that effect. The 

loss of time from work and the medical expenses incurred from 

the bone graft were not job related, and were not proximately 

caused by the incidents of August and October, 1975. We disagree. 

The function of this Court is to determine whether there 

is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions 

of the Workerst Compensation Court. Flansburg v. Pack River Co., 

Mont . , 561 P.2d 1329, 34 St.Rep. 183 (1977); Kimball 

v. Continental Oil Co., Mont . , 550 P.2d 912, 33 St.Rep. 

517, (1976). This Court will not substitute its judgment for 

that of the trial court as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Brurud v. Judge Moving & Storage Co., Inc., Employer and Transportation Insurance Co., Mont . , 563 P.2d 

558, 34 St.Rep. 260 (1977). Where there is substantial evidence 

to support the findings of the Workerst Compensation Court, this 

Court will not overturn the decision. Skrukrud v. Gallatin Laundry 

CO., Inc., Mont . , 557 P.2d 278, 33 St.Rep. 1191 (1976). 

In the case at hand the supporting evidence consists in 

part of the following: 

(1) Claimant was hired in 1973 to perform physical labor. 

From the commencement of employment and continuing for 13 months, 

claimant worked pulling wet, heavy lumber off the green chain. 

(2) Claimant was then transferred into the sawmill where 

he performed a variety of jobs requiring physical labor. While 

working in the mill, the incidents of August and October, 1975, 

occurred. Following the incidents claimant consulted medical 

experts for alleviation of pain in his wrist. 

(3) Witness, Gary Seybald, testified working alongside 

claimant for 15 months and that claimant performed his job without 
difficulty before the incidents. 

(4) Witness Seybald also testified knowing claimant's 

activities outside the job. These activities included various 

physical tasks which were performed without difficulty before 

the incidents. Following the incidents claimant was not able 

to handle the same physical labors. 

(5) Witness Robin Swimley testified claimant neither 

had problems with work nor complained about his wrist prior to 

the incident in August, 1975. 

(6) The summarized testimony of co-workers Haines and 

Snyder likewise substantiates claimant's job performance. 

(7) Medical evidence was given by Dr. Nerud that bone 

grafting was needed. Dr. Nerud stated that it was a definite 

possibility that the old un-united fracture was aggravated by 

the incidents at the mill. 

In the case at hand it is undisputed that claimant had a 

long standing un-united fracture of the left wrist. There is 

evidence that claimant performed the physical labors required of 

him up until the time of the injuries. There is evidence that 

the incidents of August and October, 1975 caused aggravation to 

claimant's wrist. It is well established in Montana that an 

employer takes his employee subject to the employee's physical 

condition at the time of employment. Birnie v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 

134 Mont. 39, 328 P.2d 133 (1958); Peitz v. Industrial Accident 

Board, 127 Mont. 316, 264 P.2d 709 (1953). An employee who 

suffers from a pre-existing condition is entitled to compensation 

if the condition was aggravated by an industrial injury. Rumsey 

v. Cardinal Petroleum, 166 Mont. 17, 530 P.2d 433 (1975); Weakley 

v. Cook, 126 Mont. 332, 249 P.2d 926 (1952). While no medical 

testimony was presented at the hearing held before the Workers' 

Compensation judge, there were medical reports and opinions 
contained in the file before the court. It is not an abuse of 

discretion for the Workers' Compensation judge to consider the 

contents of the reports. Brurud v. Judge Moving & Storage Co., 

Inc., supra. Based upon what the Workers Compensation judge 

had at his disposal, the contents of claimant's file containing 

medical reports and opinions, the testimony of witnesses and 

claimant, there was sufficient evidence to support his findings. 

The order of the Workers' Compensation Court is 

affirmed. ,- ---7 

Chief Justice 1 i 

We concur: