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 

## FEB2i: 11i'd Decided.

### Mr. JusticeJohn Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court:

Claimant William

### J. Leary suffered a myocardial infarction atapproximately 12:30 p.m., December 

### 11, 1974. Atthe time of the attack, claimant was employed as an electricianby the Anaconda Company at

### itsplant inAnaconda, Montana. Claimant submitted a workers' compensation claim shortly thereafter; itwas denied by his employer. On November 18, 1975, claimant fileda petition forhearing with theWorkers' 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 topay compensation prescribedby section 92-849, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing on the petitionwas held on January 21, 1976, in theWorkers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, the Court entered itsfindings of fact and conclusions of law denying the claim in itsentirety, on thebasis that claimant failed todemonstrate his heart attack resulted from unusual strain while engaged inwork activity. Claimant appeals. Atthe time of hisheart attack, claimant was 53 years of age and had been employed as an electricianby theAnaconda Company for 20 years. For a period of four to fiveyears prior to the heart attack, claimant worked a job known as the "swing job1'. Each week claimant worked two days atthe smelter stack substation connecting and disconnecting electrical switches; two days were spent atthe main substation taking meter readings and compiling reports, and one day he worked inplant maintenance. Whileengaged inplant maintenace, claimant was available forwork wherever an electricianwas needed atthe smelter. On December 

### 11, 1974, whileworking plant maintenance, claimant and his partner, Thomas Brebrick, were sent to the old phosphate plant todisconnect two 2,300 volt switches. The old in prior phosphate plant had not beenloperation for some time/toDecember 

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

was approximately 30' to 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy clothing. Inorder 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 tobe moved. To

move the switches, claimant and Brebrick liftedthem over pieces of angle iron fastened to the front of the wheels. Estimates of theweight of the switches ranged from 100 to 300 pounds, toa maximum of 800 pounds. The work atthe phosphate plant was completed shortly after 11:OO a.m. Claimant experienced no ill feeling atthis time. Claimant and Brebrick returned to the foundry with their equipment and prepared for lunch. Atapproximately 12:30 p.m., after finishing lunch, claimant began to experience a sensation of inability torelax and, later, indigestion and pressure on his arms. Claimant returned to thejob, but rested untilhis 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 atCommunity Hospital inAnaconda. The conditionwas diagnosed as a myocardial infarction, and claimant was irnmediately hospitalized. Claimant remained in the hospital for fourteen days. Dr. Huffman treated claimant untilMarch 17, 1975, when claimant was released to return towork. 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 fromwork 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 tomedical evidence, the heart attack suffered over one and one-half hours after the cessationof work activity and after the claimant had eaten lunch, the work activity 

### isnot 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 thejob activitywas the cause of the heart attack. The findings and conclusions demonstrate that, indetermining the lack of causal relationship, theWorkers' 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 letterwas written primarily as a response to certainhypothetical questions posed to claimant's physician, Dr. Huffman, inthe deposition of the latter. Dr. Huffman indicated inhis deposition and inother documents before the workers' Compensation Court, that he found a causal relationshipbetween the strenuous work activity involvedinclimbing numerous flights of stairsand liftingheavy electrical switches, and the heart attack. However, the hypothetical questions posed, although assuming virtually allthe relevant facts produced atthe subsequent trial, established no time reference between the work activity and theheart attack. That 

### is, the hypotheticals refer tothe symptoms of the attackoccurring "shortly after the cessation of work activity." Dr. Lewis, incommenting on the hypothetical questions, indicates the time period elapsingbetween the cessationof 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 statethe two were causally related. However, if the heart attack, ashere, occurred one and one-half hours following the completion of the activity, they would not be causally related. We note inthis regard thatneither physician testified atthe January 21hearing. While the findings and conclusions refer to and appear to be based upon the letterof 

### Dr. Lewis, nowhere 

### isany reference made to the medical opinion of Dr. Huffman. We areunable 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 theWorkers' Compensation Court. The findings and conclusions arevacated and the cause is remanded to the Workers' Compensation Court with directions that additional medical testimony regarding the heart attackbe taken.

ing ~kief 

## us diceJustices

# .