No. 83-538 

IN THE SUPWME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1984 

RUSSELL A. LAMB, 

Claimant and Respondent, 

-vsMISSOULA IMPORTS, INC., Employer, 

and 

UNIVERSAL INSURANCE CO., 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: The Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy 

Reardon, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant : 

Garlington, Lohn & Robinson; Robert E. Sheridan, 

Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent : 

Williams Law Firm; Susan Roy, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 3, 1984 

Decided: July 26, 1984 

Clerk 
Mr. Justice John Conway Na.rrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

Appellants raise this appeal from the Workers' 

Compensation Court's findings, conclusions and ruling that 

respondent's epileptic seizures stemmed from an industrial 

accident and thereby were compensable. 

Missoula Imports employed Russell Lamb as a janitor. 

On the evening of September 11, 1978, as Lamb was washing 

the floor, he slipped and fell striking his head on the 

floor. He claims he remembers little or nothing during the 

few hours following his fall. Lamb called his girlfriend 

and told her of the accident. His parents picked him up at 

the workplace and took him to the hospital emergency room 

for treatment. Dr. McMullin diagnosed him as having had a 

mild concussion and sent Lamb home with instructions to 

contact him if complications arose. Both of his parents 

observed him during the next several days. Mrs. Lamb 

testified as to the memory problems on respondent's part 

which extended to more than twenty-four hours after the 

accident. He kept asking the same question as to what had 

happened and had apparently been unable to remember the 

answers given to him in previous days. 

In February, 1979, respondent went to Dr. Johnson (a 

neurologist). Dr. Johnson performed an electroencephalogram 

and determined respondent suffered from epilepsy. He 

prescribed medication to control the seizures. However, 

respondent continued to have occasional seizures. 

On March 9, 1982, he suffered a seizure while driving 

his car on Brooks Street in Missoula, Montana. Witnesses 

reported that his car veered off to the right and hit a tree 
in a local park. Respondent claims he remembers nothing of 

the accident or the events leading up to the accident and 

remained in an intensive care unit for a considerable length 

of time. 

Respondent's mother testified that he had never had 

any indication of a prior epileptic seizure. She also 

testified that no one in the family had ever had any history 

of epileptic seizures. 

Following the filing of the claim, the parties took 

depositions from three doctors regarding the cause of 

respondent's seizures. Even though Dr. Johnson concluded 

the industrial accident probably did not cause respondent's 

seizures, he did admit the risk factor of encountering 

seizures as the result of the type of head injury sustained 

by respondent was somewhere between one and three percent. 

Dr. Dewey (a neurosurgeon), after reviewing all of the 

medical data and related information, concluded the slip and 

fall probably caused the seizures. Dr. Bertrand (a 

rehabilitation expert for seizure and trauma patients) 

expressed her belief that the head injury incurred from the 

fall caused the seizures. 

The Workers' Compensation Court, following a hearing, 

determined respondent's fall at Missoula Imports was the 

direct and proximate cause of the seizure disorder. 

Appellants raise their appeal from that order. We affirm. 

Appellants raise one issue on appeal. 

Did sufficient evidence exist to support the Workers' 

Compensation Cour t's findings that the industrial accident 

constituted the proximate cause of respondent's seizures? 

Appellants assert insufficient probative credible 
evidence exists to prove respondent's fall at Missoula 

Imports caused his seizures. They direct this Court to 

examine the meilical evidence, and accord it the proper 

weight. They believe the evidence shows the respondent's 

industrial accident merely caused a mild concussion and 

failed to cause the seizures. We disagree. 

We stated the standard for review for sufficiency of 

evidence in Little v. Structural Systems (1980), 614 P.2d 

"First of all, in examining the 

contentions by the parties to this 

appeal, it should be pointed out that 

this Court has consistently held the test 

of sufficiency of the evidence to be 

whether there is substantial evidence to 

support the court's findings of fact. 

See Stamatis v. Bechtel Power Co. (1979), 

Mont., 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866; 

Head v. Larson (1979), Mont., 592 P.2d 

507, 36 St.Rep. 571; Strandberg v. Reber 

Company (1978), Mont., 587 P.2d 18, 35 

St.Rep. 1742; Jensen v. Zook Brothers 

Construction Company (1978), Mont., 582 

P.2d 1191, 35 St.Rep. 1066. In Stamatis 

and Jensen, this Court further held that 

where the findings are 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 

zvidence to support contrary findings." 

In Jones v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1981), 196 Mont. 138, 639 

P.2d 1140, we said this Court may determine the proper 

weight of critical medical testimony entered through 

depositions: 

"Ordinarily, this Court will not 

substitute its judgment for that of the 

Workers' Compensation Court in 

determining the weight and credibility to 

be given testimony. The reason for this 

is that this Court defers to the lower 

court's assessment of the demeanor and 

credibility of witnesses. Rule 52(a), 

M.R.Civ.P. However, when the critical 

evidence, particularly medical evidence, 
is entered by deposition, we have held 

that ' this Court, although sitting in 

review, is in as good a position as the 

Workers ' Compensation Court to judge the 

weight to be given to such record 

testimony, as distinguished from oral 

testimony, where the trial court actually 

observes the character and demeanor of 

the witness on the stand. ' " Hert v. J.J. 

Newberry Co. (1978), 178 Mont. 355, 

359-360, 584 P.2d 656, 659. 

Appellants stress this Court should give Dr. Johnson's 

testimony the most weight because he is the most qualified 

expert witness. His testimony that it is unlikely the fall 

caused respondent's seizures proves appellant's contention 

that no connection exists between the industrial accident 

and the subsequent seizures. We reject this argument. 

In careful examination of the deposition by the three 

medical experts, it is clear to this Court that medical 

science remains sufficiently undeveloped in the area of 

epilepsy and seizures to rely on any one witness's 

statements as dispositive. In Conway v. Blackfeet Indian 

Developers, Inc. (Mont. 1983), 669 P.2d 225, 40 St. Rep. 

1427, we followed the rationale of Moffet v. Bozeman Canning 

Co. (1933), 95 Mont. 347, 26 P.2d 973. In both of those 

cases medical testimony failed to definitively state that 

the industrial accident caused the subsequent affliction. 

We stated: 

"'The record contains no direct evidence 

from which it can be said that the injury 

was the proximate cause of claimant's 

present condition; this, not because of 

failure on the part of claimant properly 

to present his case, but because, on the 

frank admission of the doctors, no man on 

earth knows positively the exact cause of 

such an affliction in any given case; 

medical science has not advanced to a 

point where it can positively trace back 

from the effect and declare the cause of 

the disease in a given patient, but this 

fact alone need not bar the claimant from 
recovery, if, on the record, it can be 

said that he is entitled thereto."' 669 

P.2d at 228. 

A review of the medical experts' depositions reveals 

that none of the doctors deposed respondent at the time of 

the industrial accident. Dr. Johnson assumed respondent 

merely suffered a mild concussion which most likely would 

not cause the seizures. However, that type of testimony 

must be compared to the testimony of the other physicians 

who considered the memory lapses demonstrated by the 

respondent and his epileptic seizures which have followed. 

Dr. Dewey stated he believed the accident a much more severe 

trauma and that be believed the accident at Missoula Imports 

was the probable cause of the epilepsy. Dr. Bertrand 

believed the accident caused the seizures. These experts 

all appeared sufficiently qualified to render their opinion 

in this matter. When these two physicians considered all 

the facts of the case they concluded there was a significant 

probability the epileptic seizures were the result of the 

industrial accident. Based on this evidence, we can only 

conclude that substantial medical evidence exists to support 

the Workers' Compensation Court's findings. We see no 

reason to accord Dr. Johnson's testimony any greater weight 

than the testimony of the other two doctors. He 

demonstrated no substantially greater understanding of this 

topic than the other witnesses. 

We affirm the Workers' Compensation Court. 
We concur: 

9A&$&dd4 

Chief Justice