No. 13436 

IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF TIlE STATE OF MONTANA 

1978 

WILLIAM J. LEARY, 

Claimant and Appellant, 

THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, 

and 

THE ANACONDA COMPANY, 

Insurer and Respondent. 

Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court 

Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Stephen M. Williams argued, Butte, Montana 

Submitted: January 30, 1978 

FEB 2 i: 11i'd Decided. 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the 

Court : 

Claimant William J. Leary suffered a myocardial infarction 

at approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. At the time 

of the attack, claimant was employed as an electrician by the 

Anaconda Company at its plant in Anaconda, Montana. Claimant 

submitted a workers' compensation claim shortly thereafter; 

it was denied by his employer. On November 18, 1975, claimant 

filed a petition for hearing with the Workers' Compensation 

Division requesting a determination of the compensability of 

the claim. He further requested costs, attorney fees, and the 

penalty for the employer's refusal to pay compensation prescribed by section 92-849, R.C.M. 1947. 

Hearing on the petition was held on January 21, 1976, in 

the Workers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, the Court 

entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law denying 

the claim in its entirety, on the basis that claimant failed 

to demonstrate his heart attack resulted from unusual strain 

while engaged in work activity. Claimant appeals. 

At the time of his heart attack, claimant was 53 years 

of age and had been employed as an electrician by the Anaconda 

Company for 20 years. 

For a period of four to five years prior to the heart 

attack, claimant worked a job known as the "swing job1'. Each 

week claimant worked two days at the smelter stack substation 

connecting and disconnecting electrical switches; two days were 

spent at the main substation taking meter readings and compiling 

reports, and one day he worked in plant maintenance. While 
engaged in plant maintenace, claimant was available for work 

wherever an electrician was needed at the smelter. 

On December 11, 1974, while working plant maintenance, 

claimant and his partner, Thomas Brebrick, were sent to the old 

phosphate plant to disconnect two 2,300 volt switches. The old 

in prior 

phosphate plant had not beenloperation for some time/ to December 

11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature in the building 

was approximately 30' to 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy 

clothing. 

In order to reach the switches, claimant and Brebrick 

climbed three to four flights of stairs. In the process of 

obtaining lighting equipment and ascertaining that the power 

was shut down prior to disconnection of the switches, claimant 

and Brebrick ascended and descended the stairs several times. 

The switches were on wheels enabling them to be moved. To 

move the switches, claimant and Brebrick lifted them over pieces 

of angle iron fastened to the front of the wheels. Estimates 

of the weight of the switches ranged from 100 to 300 pounds, to a 

maximum of 800 pounds. 

The work at the phosphate plant was completed shortly 

after 11:OO a.m. Claimant experienced no ill feeling at this 

time. Claimant and Brebrick returned to the foundry with their 

equipment and prepared for lunch. At approximately 12:30 p.m., 

after finishing lunch, claimant began to experience a sensation 

of inability to relax and, later, indigestion and pressure on 

his arms. Claimant returned to the job, but rested until his 

shift ended at 3:00 p.m. Claimant then drove home and retired 

for the evening. The following morning, claimant was examined 

by Dr. Huffman at Community Hospital in Anaconda. The condition 
was diagnosed as a myocardial infarction, and claimant was 

irnmedia tely hospitalized. Claimant remained in the hospital for 

fourteen days. Dr. Huffman treated claimant until March 17, 1975, 

when claimant was released to return to work. 

Following his release, claimant submitted his claim for 

compensation. This action ensued from the denial of that claim. 

Claimant raises several issues on appeal. Critical to the 

resolution of this case is the determination of whether claimant's 

heart attack resulted from work related stress or strain. Section 

92-418(1), R.C.M. 1947. 

In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the workers' 

Compensation Court found: 

"That according to medical evidence, the heart 

attack suffered over one and one-half hours after 

the cessation of work activity and after the claimant 

had eaten lunch, the work activity is not related to 

the heart attack.'' 

The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, as a matter 

of law, that claimant had not proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the job activity was the cause of the heart attack. 

The findings and conclusions demonstrate that, in determining 

the lack of causal relationship, the Workers' Compensation Court 

relied almost exclusively upon a letter submitted by Dr. Walter 

J. Lewis 111, a Missoula cardiologist, who examined claimant 

some two months following the heart attack. The letter was 

written primarily as a response to certain hypothetical questions posed to claimant's physician, Dr. Huffman, in the 

deposition of the latter. 

Dr. Huffman indicated in his deposition and in other documents before the workers' Compensation Court, that he found a 

causal relationship between the strenuous work activity involved 
in climbing numerous flights of stairs and lifting heavy electrical 

switches, and the heart attack. However, the hypothetical questions posed, although assuming virtually all the relevant facts 

produced at the subsequent trial, established no time reference 

between the work activity and the heart attack. That is, the 

hypotheticals refer to the symptoms of the attack occurring 

"shortly after the cessation of work activity." 

Dr. Lewis, in commenting on the hypothetical questions, 

indicates the time period elapsing between the cessation of work 

activity and the onset of symptoms is critical. He states if the 

heart attack occurred within one-half hour of the cessation of 

work, he could state the two were causally related. However, if 

the heart attack, as here, occurred one and one-half hours following 

the completion of the activity, they would not be causally related. 

We note in this regard that neither physician testified at the 

January 21 hearing. 

While the findings and conclusions refer to and appear to 

be based upon the letter of Dr. Lewis, nowhere is any reference 

made to the medical opinion of Dr. Huffman. We are unable to 

ascertain from the findings and conclusions the basis for or 

reasoning behind the rejection of such opinion. 

Upon a thorough review of the record, we therefore conclude 

there is insufficient medical testimony to support the findings 

and conclusions of the Workers' Compensation Court. The findings 

and conclusions are vacated and the cause is remanded to the 

Workers' Compensation Court with directions that additional 

medical testimony regarding the heart attack be taken. 

ing ~kief us dice 
Justices .