NO. 82-395 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WNTAPJA 

1983 

DEE SHEPARD, 

Claimant and Appellant, 

VS. 

MIDLAND FOODS, INCORPORATED. 

Employer, and GLACIER GFNERAL 

ASSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants and Respondents. 

Appeal from Workers' Compensation Court 

Honorable Tim Reardon, Judge presidina 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Hall, Halverson & Sheehy, Billinqs, Montana 

William T. Kelly, Billings, Plontana 

For Respondents: 

Crowley, Hauahey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Billings, Montana 

Submitted on briefs- April 21 1983 

Decided? July 19 , 19 83 

JUL I 9 1983 

Filed : d 
Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Claimant Shepard appeals from a decision of the Workers' 

Compensation Court that he was ineligible for further 

benefits. We reverse the Workers' Compensation Court, and 

remand for a determination of compensation due, as well as 

fees, costs and penalties, if any. 

Claimant presents half a dozen issues for review. The 

following issues are dispositive: 

1. Whether there was substantial evidence to support 

the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that 

claimant's knees had deteriorated (and eventually collapsed) 

because of other than work related reasons. 

2. Whether there was substantial evidence to support 

the Workers' Compensation Court's determination that claimant 

had recovered from his February 14, 1980 industrial accident 

by February 25, 1980, when he returned to work. 

Dee Shepard, the claimant, has been a general laborer 

all his working life. In September of 1973, he was hired by 

Midland Foods, Inc. (Midland) . His job involved very heavy 

work cleaning the boning room and beef coolers in a packing 

plant. For six and one-half years, claimant routinely lifted 

garbage cans and tubs containing meat scraps and bones which 

weighed several hundred pounds. He jacked up and hauled away 

racks of meat weighing half a ton to a ton. He washed the 

boning rooms and coolers, squatting, kneeling and stooping 

for hours at a time, while pulling heavy hoses and 

machinery. He lifted garbage cans full of ice. He jumped on 

and off a four-foot-high table he had to clean. Mr. Shepard 

is a stocky man, 5'4%'' tall, whose weight has fluctuated 

between 155 and 205 lbs. over the last decade. His favorite 

hobby, up until he was 50 or 52 years old, was weightlifting. 
At 50 years of age, he could lift 500 lbs. He stopped 

weightlifting about 1969. 

In 1972, Mr. Shepard began having pain in his knees. 

His doctor diagnosed the condition as degenerative arthritis 

and chondrocalcinosis. Doctors testifying in this case 

described the first condition as a relentlessly progressive 

disease involving the wearing away of the cartilage lining of 

a joint, accompanied by pain, bony changes and some bone 

deformation. The condition generally takes years to develop 

into an advanced stage and is not reversible. It is 

aggravated, and the accompanying degeneration of joints and 

bones is accelerated, by weightbearing, obesity and trauma. 

The doctors described chondrocalcinosis as the existence of 

calcium crystal deposits in the joints. The deposits 

sometimes break free and cause episodes of severe pain and 

swelling known as "pseudogout." Pseudogout is treatable with 

anti-inflammatory drugs. Chondrocalcinosis and pseudogout do 

not cause instability or degenerative changes in the bone. 

They are neither caused nor aggravated by heavy lifting. In 

fact, pseudogout may flare up during periods of inactivity, 

as the record shows it did for Dee Shepard. 

The physician attending Mr. Shepard in 1972 (Dr. Flynn) 

noted that an x-ray of the left knee showed changes in the 

cartilage and bone consistent with advanced degenerative 

arthritic change. He noted, "I cannot see any fracture or 

dislocation in the left knee." During the next eight years, 

claimant experienced several episodes of pain and swelling 

and some instability in his knees. Doctors treated him by 

draining synovial fluid and injecting cortisone into the 

knee. In 1975, when Mr. Shepard was hospitalized for a heart 

"minimal varus deformity, I' or slight bowleggedness , 

was noted by a Dr. Hull in both of Mr. Shepard's knees. This 
condition is also consistent with degenerative arthritis. 

From September of 1973 on, Mr. Shepard performed the 

extremely heavy work required by his job with Midland. By 

1977, he was walking with a limp. 

On February 14, 1980, Mr. Shepard slipped on an icy step 

at work and fell, twisting his left knee and striking it 

sharply against the edge of the step. His knee was numbed by 

the blow but gradually became very painful. Mr. Shepard 

completed his shift, then went to the St. Vincent's ~ospital 

emergency room in Billings, where his knee was x-rayed and 

his leg put in a strap-on cast. Within a few days, claimant 

visited Dr. Taylor, who fitted him with a hinged leather 

lace-up brace and crutches. The brace was required to keep 

Mr. Shepard's left knee from "popping out," or dislocating. 

He wore the brace for approximately a year, and used the 

crutches for two months longer. 

Mr. Shepard received temporary total disability benefits 

until he returned to his job on February 25, 1980, a period 

of ten days. He testified that working after February 25 was 

extremely painful for him, and that he began to experience 

difficulties with his right knee as well: 

"Q. Did you experience any problems as a result of 

wearing that hinged knee brace for approximately a 

year? A. Yes. I would have to lace it so tight 

in order to keep my left knee in place that I would 

cut off the circulation off of my leg and my leg 

would swell above the brace and also below the 

brace. And my toes would discolor, and three to 

four times a night I would have to open it up and 

massage my leg in order to get circulation back. 

The pain was terrible. . . If I slacked off a 

little bit on the brace, [the left knee] would not 

stay in place. I'd go to step down, and I would 

fall because there was nothing there. 

"Q. What problems were you having with the right 

knee during this period of time? A. I was bearing 

as much weight as I could bear to take the pressure 

off the left knee. 

"Q. What did you experience as a result of putting 

more weight on your right knee? A. Mostly it 
would get so tired and then I would he getting 

pain. 

"Q. In which leg or knee? A. On the right -- On 

the right knee." 

On April 10, 1980, on the advice of Dr. Taylor, Dee 

Shepard retired. Dr. Taylor's case notes on Mr. Shepard, 

dated April 10, 1980, state, "His knees have collapsed." A 

subsequent letter from Dr. Taylor to claimant's attorney, 

dated June 15, 1981, states in pertinent part: 

"I would say there was aggravation of a knee 

problem with the accident of Feb. 14, 1980 . . . His knee problem is presumed to be quite a long 

term, very chronic, kind of dysfunction, and I 

would consider the percent of aggravation . . . to 

be very small as regards the Feb. 14, 1980 

incident." 

Dr. Griffin examined Mr. Shepard in December of 1981. 

He noted that x-rays showed significant degenerative changes 

in Mr. Shepard's knees since 1972, and found "rather 

remarkable [varus] deformity . " (bowleggedness) Dr. Griffin 

testifed that such a deformity "means almost always that 

there's been significant bony change in one of the 

compartments of the knee . . . [It] means that there's 

significant wear and tear." Dr. Griffin also stated that 

while Mr. Shepard's weightlifting hobby could explain the 

changes evident -- in 1972, it could not be considered the only 

possible cause, and that weighthearing, along with obesity 

and trauma would accelerate the degeneration of the cartilage 

and the joints. 

Dr. Taylor, Mr. Shepard's attending physician after the 

February 14, 1980 accident, stated that he was "not very 

impressed with the specific incident as the main problem." 

He described Mr. Shephard's knees as "disaster knees," which, 

due to a longstanding condition of degenerative arthritis had 

deteriorated by 1980 to the point that they would respond to 

nothing but fusion, or the more preferable total knee 
replacement. Dr. Taylor noted that the February 1980 x-rays 

indicated "multiple knee in juries [and] many, many 

subluxations" or small dislocations in both knees. He stated 

that, although the industrial accident was an aggravant, he 

did not consider it the major cause of damage to Mr. 

Shepard's joints, not the kind of thing which takes the 

arthritic person to his "crippling end." The weightbearing 

and activity associated with day-to-day living aggravated the 

condition. Dr. Taylor stated that Mr. Shepard's knee 

deterioration would have resulted in his forced retirement 

within a short period. He also stated: 

"The job that you described to me, that was 

described to me that Mr. Shepard did at Midland 

Pack, I am sure would be an accelerant." 

Upon Mr. Shepard's retirement he sought, and was denied, 

permanent total disability benefits. He petitioned the 

Workers' Compensation Court for a hearing, which was held 

November 18, 1981. The Workers' Compensation Court issued 

its findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment on 

September 14, 1982 denying benefits, costs, fees and 

penalties. Mr. Shepard appeals. 

I. 

Mr. Shepard argues that both his work for Midland and 

the February 14, 1980 accident at work aggravated his 

underlying condition of degenerative arthritis, accelerating 

the approach of his eventual breakdown and total disability. 

He argues that the Workers' Compensation Court erred in its 

conclusion that the condition of his knees had deteriorated 

because of other than work-related reasons. We agree. 

Uncontested evidence established that Mr. Shepard's 

degenerative arthritis was a pre-existing condition which had 

been diagnosed prior to his beginning work at Midland. 
"The well established rule in Montana is that 

an employer takes - - his employee subject to the 

employee's - - physical condition - - at the time of 

employment. Schumacher v. Empire Steel 

Manufacturina -I-- Co. and ~m~loverT L .' Mutual Liabilitv z. 

Insurance Co. (1977), Mont., 574 P.2d 987, 34 

St.Rep. 1112. Close -- v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1977), 

Mont., 573 P.2d 163. The fact that an employee is 

suffering from or afflicted with pre-existing 

disease or disability does not preclude 

compensation if the disease or disability is 

aggravated or accelerated by an industrial 

accident. Birnie v. U.S. Gypsum Co. (1958), 134 

Mont. 39, 328 ~zd 133; ~umseyv. Cardinal 

Petroleum (1975), 166 Mont. 17, 530-p.2d 433." 

Robins v. Anaconda Aluminum Company (1 978) , 175 

Mont. 514, 518, 575 P.2d 67, 70. 

This Court has recognized that a series of minor 

traumas, which are work related and which sufficiently 

aggravate a pre-existing condition to result in disability, 

must be treated as a slowly developing injury, which is 

compensable. Jones v. St. Regis Paper Co. (1982) Mont . 

, 639 P.2d 1140, 38, St.Rep. 2201. 

In Hoehne v. Granite Lumber Co. (1980) Mont . 

, 615 P.2d 863, 37 St. Rep. 1307 (not. a pre-existing 

injury case), we held that the "tangible happening of a 

traumatic nature" required under section 39-71-119 (1) , MCA, 

before injury can be found, need not be a single isolated 

incident, but may well be a "chain of incidents" leading to 

an injury. In Hoehne, the claimant's job involved stacking 

lumber on a daily basis; the work itself was found to be a 

series of actions or incidents resulting in injury. In 

Hoehne, this Court also recognized that "unusual strain" 

under section 39-71-119 (1) , MCA, does not necessarily refer 

to an unexpected cause, but can apply to an unexpected 

resulting injury, even though the effort involved was not 

unusual for the particular job. See Jones v. Bair's Cafes 

(1968) 152 Mont. 13, 445 P.2d 923, wherein claimant, a 

dishwasher, was injured lifting a heavy tray of dishes, 

although such lifting was a routine part of her job. This 
Court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Court, holding that 

there was an "unusual strain" and a compensable injury under 

section 92-418, R.C.M. 1947, the forerunner to section 

39-71-119 (I), MCA. 

In the case at bar, both Dr. Griffin and Dr. Taylor 

testified by deposition that the heavy work Mr. Shepard 

routinely performed at Midland would have aggravated his 

existing condition, i.e., would have accelerated the 

breakdown of his knees. Both physicians recognized the 

February 14, 1980 accident as an aggravant of Mr. Shepard's 

condition. X-rays show "a marked increase" in varus bone 

deformity between 1972 and 1980, just after Mr. Shepard's 

accident. The x-rays also indicate "many, many 

subluxations", or small dislocations in the knee joints, 

which were not evident in 1972. The physicians stated that 

these symptoms were indicative of wear and tear on the joint, 

and would probably result in pain and instability. This 

evidence of work-related injury aggravating a pre-existing 

condition is considerable and is unrebutted. 

The well-settled standard of review in cases appealed 

from the Worker's Compensation Court is stated in Nielsen v. 

Beaver Pond, Inc. (1983) Mont . , 661 P.2d 47, 49, 

40 St.Rep. 489, 491: 

"Our function in reviewing a decision of the 

Workers' Compensation Court is to determine whether 

there is substantial evidence to support the 

findings and conclusions of that court. We cannot 

substitute our judgment for that of the trial court 

as to the weight of evidence on questions of fact. 

Where there is substantial evidence to support the 

findings of the Workers ' Compensation Court, this 

Court cannot overturn the decision. Steffes v. 93 

Leasing Co., Inc. (U.S.F. & G.) (1978), 177 Mont. 

83, 86, 87, 580 P.2d 450, 452; [Pinion v. H. C. 

Smith Const. Co. (1980) Mont . , 619 P.2d 

167, 168, 37 St.Rep. 1, 1356-571 Novak v. 

Montgomery Ward and Co. (1981), Mont., 638 P.2d 

390, 392, 38 St.Rep. 1803; Viets v. Sweet Grass 

County (1978), 178 Mont. 337, 583 P.2d 1070, 1071, 

1072." 
Respondent relies on statements by Dr. Taylor and Dr. 

Griffin that Mr. Shepard's "main problem" was degenerative 

arthritis of the knees and pseudogout caused by 

chondrocalcinosis, which conditions had been present for 

nearly a decade and probably would have forced his early 

retirement even absent the 1980 accident. 

The Workers' Compensation Court found that the 1980 

accident aggravated Dee Shepard's pre-existing knee 

condition, and that "weight-bearing, at work or otherwise, 

would speed up the degenerative process." There is no 

evidence whatsoever to suggest that Mr. Shepard did heavy 

work outside of his job with Midland, having abandoned his 

weightlifting hobby at least three years before he began work 

with Midland and more than ten years before his fall in 

February of 1980. Certainly his own weight and the normal 

degeneration associated with the disease contributed to Mr. 

Shepard's breakdown in 1980. But unchallenged medical 

evidence establishes that the pre-existing condition was 

aggravated and the degeneration and breakdown were 

accelerated by the many small traumas to his knees caused by 

Mr. Shepard's work with Midland and also by his February 14, 

1980 industrial accident. 

We hold that the Workers' Compensation Court's 

conclusion that Dee Shepard's knees had deteriorated for 

other than work related reasons is not supported by 

substantial evidence. 

11. 

The Worker's Compensation Court found that when Dee 

Shepard returned to work on February 25, 1980, he "had 

completely recovered" from the aggravation of his condition 

caused by his fall. Respondent now urges this Court not to 

"retry Dee Shepard's case," because the unrebutted evidence 
that he returned to work and worked steadily for 

approximately six weeks before retiring, constitutes 

substantial evidence that he had completely recovered. 

We do not agree. That evidence only indicates that he 

was able to return to work for six weeks. The remainder of 

the evidence establishes that Dee Shepard returned to work in 

a condition far worse than before his accident and that he 

worked for six weeks despite pain, inconvenience and further 

deterioration of his condition caused by the heavy work and 

his attempts to minimize the pain and damage to his left knee 

by shifting his weight to the right. 

Before his accident, Dee Shepard had worked steadily for 

years, without a brace, without crutches, and without 

constant, severe pain. He returned to work only ten days 

after his accident with a hinged leather brace, which had to 

be kept extremely tight to prevent his knee from dislocating 

constantly. He was in such pain that he took up to a dozen 

aspirin during a shift, a fact noted by the Workers' 

Compensation Court. His right knee began to trouble him 

because of the extent to which he favored the left. In April 

of 1980, Dr. Taylor noted: "His knees have collapsed." Dr. 

Taylor stated in deposition that there is no "healing 

process" with degenerative arthritis, only an "attempt at 

healing" which results in the type of extra bone formation 

evident in Mr. Shepard's x-rays. The disease itself is 

"relentlessly progressive", although the speed of 

deterioration can be affected by weightbearing, obesity and 

trauma. 

Dr. Griffin, who treated several of Mr. Shepard's 

episodes of pseudogout between 1972 and 1976, did not see Mr. 

Shepard again until December of 1981, nearly two years after 

Mr. Shepard's return to work. His conclusion that in 
December of 1981, Mr. Shepard's pseudogout symptoms were, 

"fairly well resolved," can have no bearing here, being too 

remote in time to indicate Mr. Shepard's condition upon his 

return to work in February of 1980. 

Mr. Shepard stated at hearing in November of 1981 that 

he was at that time exercising and moving without pain. Dr. 

Taylor attributed that not to recovery, but to "neuropathic 

knees", a loss of feeling in the knees, generally due to some 

other condition, which usually results in further knee damage 

due to use of a damaged knee joint without the protection of 

the warning provided by pain. 

There is no substantial evidence which supports the 

Workers' Compensation Courts' conclusion that Dee Shepard had 

fully recovered from his accident at the time he returned to 

work. On the contrary, all significant evidence suggests the 

return to work of a man disabled by disease, weightbearing at 

work, and work-related trauma, whose disability was increased 

by his return to work. 

We reverse the Workers' Compensation Court on both 

issues and remand this case for a determination of the 

compensation, costs, fees and penalties, if any, to which Dee 

Shepard is entitled. 

We concur: 

Justices 

11 
Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson dissenting. 

I respectfully dissent. 

I would affirm the decision of the Workers' Compensation 

Court on the basis that there is substantial evidence to support 

the findings and conclusion of that court. 

Judge Reardon, after observing and hearing the testimony of 

the claimant and considering the depositions of the two medical 

experts, ruled that the claimant's incapacities were not produced 

by the industrial accident of February 14, 1980. In referring to 

the claimant's medical condition and the specific incident of the 

knee injury on February 14, 1980, Dr. Taylor testified as 

follows: 

"Q. During the course of Mr. Kelly's examination earlier, you were referred to your first 

report of treatment of Mr. Shepard, and you 

said that your diagnosis was 'knee arthritis', 

indicating that you were not particularly 

impressed with the single incident. Can you 

describe why? 

A. I was . . . You are in fact correct. I 

was not impressed with the single incident, as 

it was quite clear from clinical findings and 

x-ray findings that Mr. Shepard had had, in my 

opinion, a high likelihood of having had badly 

disorganized knees for some time. In fact, I 

did not even refer in my initial note and 

incorrectly so to the fact that he had been 

recently injured. 

"Q. You have indicated to Mr. Shepard and 

also to Midland Foods that he should probably 

retire because of the condition of his knees. 

A. That, and another reason. 

"Q. What is the other reason? 

A. That is something that I have to take 

exception to Mr. Kelly's list of fact. I 

really question as readily as the quitting 

work of how badly he wants to keep working. 

He fits "the last-straw syndrome". That is an 

elderly man who is working in a relatively, an 

uneducated elderly man who is working in a 

fairly uninteresting job who sustains an 

injury, and that injury can be relatively 

minor. It is really difficult for that 

patient to return to work, and for that reason 

in making that diagnosis of "the last-straw 

syndrome", I recommended that he be retired as 

I felt certain that he would never return to 

work, in any case. 

"Q. Referring then to the first reason, the 

instability and the long-standing problems 

with both knees, would that reason alone have 

been sufficient for you to make that recommen- 
dation that he retire? 

A. Yes. 

"Q. Is the left knee, based upon your clinical findings and your x-rays and all of your 

experience in the same, better or worse condition than the right knee? 

A. Well, both are in terrible condition, but 

I would say that the left knee has some retention of joint space medially, and on a scale 

of one hundred bad points the right knee has 

one hundred and the left has ninety-nine. 

"Q. So actually the left knee is better than 

the right knee based on what? 

A. Very marginally. 

"Q. That's all? 

A. And recall, too, that historically he has 

pain in his, he has alleged pain in his left 

knee and that obviously makes it a worse knee. 

"Q. You indicated also in answer to a 

question by Mr. Kelly that the ordinary functions of life are going to continue to aggravate the condition of Mr. Shepard's knees? 

A. Yes. This is a relentlously progressive 

condition. 

"Q. You said that it is a relentlously 

progressive condition, and that there are 

aggravations similar to the one which you presumed occurred on February the 14th, 1980, the 

industrial accident. And I am asking you to 

describe what the effect of those aggravations 

is, or what their nature is. 

A. That was a specific aggravant, an injury. 

And these, while they are probably aggravants, 

are not the kind of things which takes this 

man to his eventual end, and I think that end 

must be a crippling end. They are, the things 

that bring him to that end are the fact that 

he continues to bear weight; in other words, 

he gets out of bed in the morning, goes to the 

bathroom, has breakfast, goes out and works in 

his yard or goes for a walk or goes fishing or 

gets in the car and goes down to the grocery 

store, all of these things involve weight 

bearing and will mandate relentlous 

progression. 

"Q. Doctor, we take the view that if Mr. 

Shepard is disabled due to a physical condition at this time, that that disability is 

one which exists with or without the 

occurrence of this February 14th, 1980 incident. Do you agree? 

"A. Okay, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, yes. 

"Q. You agree with me? 

A. Yes. Agree that he would have been, would 
have retirement within a short period, in any 

case, as much because of his knees as the 

other factor that I mentioned. In addition to 

which, he approaches the normal age for 

retirement, in any case." 

Dr. Griffin testified by deposition and hospital records from 

the Billings Clinic were received in evidence. Those records 

revealed severe knee problems as early as August ,1972. The 

radiology report, made in conjunction with claimant's complaints 

at that time, stated: "These findings are consistent with 

advanced degenerative arthritic change." Dr. Griffin testified 

as follows: 

" [Q.] I'm asking did you see any symptoms of 

this February 1980 slip and fall on your physical examination of Mr. Shepard? 

A. Well, the only thing I saw was--evidence 

of his physical findings was noted; namely, 

some arthritic changes in both knees. 

"Q. And these are things that you had seen 

going back as far as 1972, correct? 

A. Correct. 

"Q. Including, I think, a reference to the 

limp as far back as 1977, at least? 

A. Right. 

"Q. Well, Doctor, in a nutshell, I guess I'm 

asking whether or not it would be your medical 

opinion that Mr. Shepard 's impairment with 

regard to his knees was medically the result 

of the degenerative arthritis, pseudogout, and 

chondrocalcinosis, which is of longstanding. 

"MR. KELLY: Excuse me. Objected to on the 

grounds that the question is not phrased in 

the terms of being within a reasonable degree 

of medical certainity and is irrelevant and 

immaterial. 

"BY MR. BISHOP: 

"Q. And, of course, I'm asking for your opinion within a reasonable degree of medical 

certainty. 

A. Well, the answer to your question is yes. 

"Q. Doctor, we have previously taken the 

deposition of Dr. James Taylor, an orthopedic 

surgeon here in Billings who you have referred 

to also, I see, in your note of December 29, 

1981, and Dr. Taylor has testified that he's 

not impressed with the single incident of 

February 1980 as an explanation for the condition of Mr. Shepard's knees, which Mr. 

Shepard describes as incapacitating , and I 
will ask you for your opinion, to a reasonable 

degree of medical certainty, as to the effect, 

if any, which you would assign to the February 

1980 event which Mr. Shepard has described to 

you insofar as it relates to the condition of 

his knees which you have seen from 1972 

through December 29, 1981. 

"MR. KELLY: Excuse me, Doctor, before you 

answer. I wish to object upon the grounds 

that the question exceeds the scope of the 

cross examination and is improper, irrelevant, 

immaterial, and incompetent, and does not 

assume all of the facts, and is an improper 

hypothetical question. 

"MR. BISHOP: In view of the fact that cross 

examination centered on the question of the 

claimant's incapacity and the measuring of 

that incapacity, I think that this redirect is 

perfectly within the scope of cross. 

"MR. KELLY: I move to strike Counsel's auditory explanation as not constituting a 

question. 

"BY MR. BISHOP: 

"Q. Do you have the question in mind still, 

Doctor? 

A. Well, yeah, I think I know what the 

question is. 

"Q. Okay. Why don't you go ahead and try to 

answer it, then. 

A. Well based on my notes and records, I 

would say that Mr. Shepard's incapacity 

related to his arthritis is one of 

longstanding, and I, since I did not see him 

at the time of his injury but I did see him in 

December of 1981, and I would say that his 

changes were those of chronic degenerative 

arthritis of the knees, a chronic process. 

"Q. What effect or significance, if any, 

would you assign to the February 1980 slip and 

fall incident which Mr. Shepard describes? 

A. From what it sounded like to me, he had a 

contusion of his knee with a lot of immediate 

pain and swelling and discomfort. 

"Q. From what you saw, did it appear that 

that had, then, run its course? 

A. It appeared to be fairly much resolved 

when I saw him." 

The Workers ' Compensation Court's decision hinges upon the 

fundamental principle that compensation is payable only for 

"injury producing . . . disability." See sections 39-71-701, 

702, and 703, MCA. 

In my view, workers' compensation insurance does have statutory limits. Its benefits should be liberally allowed, but it 
should not be construed so broadly that it becomes a substitute 

for general health insurance, pensions, or retirement programs. 

This Court recently handed down a decision tacitly approving 

the State's commendable program of hiring the handicapped. I 

fear that the majority decision will provide great incentive to 

employers to avoid hiring anyone who is in less than perfect 

health. 

I would affirm the Workers' Compensat 

\