No. 89-425 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

GREGORY KRAFT , 

Claimant and Appellant, 

FLATHEAD VALLEY LABOR & CONTRACTORS, 

Employer 

and 

STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court 

The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

John H. Bothe, Bothe & Lauridsen, Columbia Falls, 

Montana 

For Respondent: 

Norman C. Peterson, Assistant Attorney General, 

Helena, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: April 5, 1990 

< ; c: Fiy;d: Decided: May 24, 1990 . . P .- ! 

-- __ , :,' 

i, .- " 

L'd . .). - . .. .4 ; ,* 

-' . _ , ' .? +;>; ,-., , , ',: ,;::-J 

, - -- ' "'! ". $- ' .,,, l',' . , 

- .,..- , .- - .,.. 

- ..: ! -. -. c-:, --- 

, , ~Clerk 4 . - - ... 
Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Claimant, Gregory Kraft, appeals the judgment of the Workers ' 

Compensation Court which denied him benefits for carpal tunnel 

syndrome. The lower court found that claimant failed to carry his 

burden of proving that a compensable claim existed. We reverse and 

remand. 

The sole issue is: 

Whether the Hearing Examiner's finding that the claimant's 

carpal tunnel condition is not a compensable injury under the 

Workers' compensation Act is supported by substantial evidence. 

The claimant, Mr. Kraft, was 29 years old at the time of 

trial. He has spent a substantial portion of his career working 

in various lumber mills. In 1982, Mr. Kraft was employed by Lumber 

Enterprises in Bozeman, Montana. While in employment for that 

company, he suffered a carpal tunnel condition to his right wrist. 

This injury was incurred due to the repetitive nature of Mr. 

Kraft's work, which consisted of working on a machine called the 

green chain. In order to relieve the pressure on his right wrist, 

which resulted from the condition, Mr. Kraft underwent surgery. 

After approximately eight weeks he returned to work at Lumber 

Enterprises, and drove a forklift. 

In 1985, Mr. Kraft began working at F.H. Stoltze Land and 

Lumber Company in Columbia Falls, Montana, as a contract laborer 

for Flathead Valley Labor Contractors. He was initially assigned 

to pull dry chain, which required that he pull approximately 1,500 
boards an hour as they came through the trim saws. Mr. Kraft 

worked the dry chain constantly over an 8 to 9 hour shift five days 

a week. 

By October of 1986, both of Mr. Kraftls wrists began to bother 

him. The pain in his wrists gradually increased until March of 

1987. At that time, he was given the option of transferring to a 

clean up position. In order to bring some relief to his wrists, 

Mr. Kraft exercised that option. The job change reduced his wrist 

pain, however, the pain has remained basically the same since that 

change. 

Although the clean up job brought relief to Mr. Kraftls 

wrists, it exacerbated a prior back injury. In June of 1987, he 

was offered a full time position with Stoltze. As a result, he 

underwent a physical examination. Mr. Kraft failed this 

examination because of back problems (congenital scoliosis) and, 

therefore, was not hired. He continued to work clean up crew as a 

contract laborer. However, as time went on his back condition 

worsened and he was finally forced to quit on July 23, 1987. 

Following Mr. Kraft's termination of work he was treated by 

Dr. Paul Ruttle on July 28, 1987, for his complaints of low back 

and bilateral wrist pain. It was eventually determined that his 

wrist pain was caused by bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. 

Mr. Kraft filed a claim with the Division of Workers1 

Compensation on July 20, 1987 In that claim, he sought 

compensation for his wrists and his back. The Division disputed 

the claim, and the matter was heard by the Workers1 Compensation 
Court on June 1, 1988. The Hearing Examiner found that as to the 

carpal tunnel condition, Mr. Kraft failed to carry his burden of 

proving that a compensable claim existed. He also found that 

although Mr. Kraft had suffered an injury in the form of 

microtraumas to his low back, the condition was not compensable 

under the Workers1 Compensation Act, but was more properly brought 

under the occupational Disease Act. 

Mr. Kraft filed a motion for rehearing. The motion was 

denied. He filed a Notice of Appeal and appealed only that portion 

of the judgment dealing with the carpal tunnel condition. 

Findings of the Workers1 Compensation Court will not be 

overturned if there is substantial evidence to support them. 

Steffes v. 93 Leasing Co. Inc. (1978), 177 Mont 83, 580 P.2d 450. 

However, findings and conclusions of the lower court "may not stand 

where there is a clear preponderance of the evidence against such 

findings or conclusions when viewed in the light most favorable to 

the prevailing party.I1 Hert v. J.J. Newberry (1978) , 178 Mont. 

355, 359, 584 P.2d 656, 658. 

The facts of this case do not support the lower court's 

conclusion that Gregory Kraftls carpal tunnel condition was not a 

compensable injury under the Workers1 Compensation Act. See 88 39- 

71-101, et seq. The Hearing Examiner found that when Kraft began 

working at the Stoltze mill in 1986, he was not experiencing any 

problems with his wrists. Following his assignment to the dry 

chain, Mr. Kraft began to experience pain in both wrists, however. 

Eventually, he switched to the clean up crew, because he felt that 
the job would be easier and would help him avoid repetitive 

grasping motions which aggravated his condition. Following this 

job change, Mr. Kraft experienced relief from the symptoms of his 

carpal tunnel condition. 

These findings are bolstered by the testimony of Dr. John V. 

Stephens, who treated Mr. Kraft for both his back and his wrist 

injuries. Dr. Stephens testified that the carpal tunnel condition 

was probably caused by Mr. Kraft's job duties on the dry chain. 

He further testified that due to Mr Kraft's prior right carpal 

tunnel condition, he was predisposed to suffer the same condition 

in his left wrist. None of this evidence was effectively rebutted 

by the defense. 

The defense maintains that Kraft failed to prove that his 

injuries were the result of job related activities. Instead, they 

assert that the condition may have arisen from Kraft's fly-fishing 

activities which involve the same basic wrist motion as that 

performed on the dry chain. This contention fails, however, in 

light of Kraft's unrebutted testimony that he hadn't fished during 

his employment at Stoltze. He further testified that he utilized 

his right hand when he did fish, and therefore, this activity could 

not possibly have caused the condition in his left wrist. 

The Hearing Examiner used as a basis of his conclusion that 

Kraft did not prove his case, the facts that ''he did not report an 

injury to his wrists, he did not miss work because of wrist pain, 

and he did not notify his employer of wrist pain from his work.'' 

He used as further support for his judgment Kraft's testimony that 
despite the discomfort and pain in his wrists, he could still do 

the work on the dry chain better than anyone else at the mill. The 

defense maintains that these facts are sufficient to uphold the 

judgment of the lower court. 

We disagree. These facts have no relevance to the central 

issue at trial. That issue was: 

Did Gregory Kraft sustain a compensable injury while 

employed at Stoltze Land and Lumber? 

In order to affirmatively answer this question, Kraft need 

only prove that: (1) he was an employee of Stoltze; (2) he 

received an injury; and (3) that his injury arose out of and in the 

course of his employment. See S 39-71-407, MCA; Wirta v. North 

Butte Mining Co. (1922), 64 Mont. 279, 210 P. 332. Mr. Kraftts 

unrebutted testimony, together with that of his doctor clearly 

establish the fact that he suffered an injury as defined by the law 

in effect at the time he was employed at Stoltze Lumber. 

This Court has stated, on many occasions, that the law in 

effect on the date of injury is controlling. See Young Motor 

Company v. Division of Workers1 Comp. (1985), 219 Mont. 1, 710 P.2d 

58. Therefore, in order to determine whether Mr. Kraftts condition 

is an injury, as that term was defined during the period he worked 

on the dry chain, we consult the statutes in effect during that 

period of time. 

Mr. Kraft worked the dry chain from approximately December of 

1985 until he was forced to quit in March of 1987. The statute in 

effect during that time period defined injury as: 
(1) a tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an 

unexpected cause or unusual strain resulting in either 

external or internal physical harm and such physical 

condition as a result therefrom and excluding disease not 

traceable to injury, except as provided in subsection (2) 

of this section . . . 9 39-71-119(1), MCA (1985). 

The statute states two elements which must be present in order 

to prove an injury: "(1) a tangible happening of a traumatic 

nature; and (2) that this is the cause of the physical harm." Wise 

v. Perkins (1983), 202 Mont. 157, 656 P.2d 816. In Hoehne v. 

Granite Lumber Company (1980), 189 Mont. 221, 615 P.2d 863, we held 

that a tangible happening need not be a single isolated event, but 

rather could result through Ita chain of accidents or incidents, 

i.e. stacking of lumber on a daily basis." 

Mr. Kraft has proven that his wrist condition fits under this 

definition of injury. His testimony revealed that his wrists only 

began to bother him following his employment on the dry chain. 

Moreover, the testimony of his doctor taken as a whole established 

the causal relationship between the activity and Kraftts carpal 

tunnel syndrome. 

The conclusion of the Workers1 Compensation Court is not 

supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, as stated earlier, 

the uncontested facts presented by this case fully establish that 

Mr. Kraft sustained a compensable injury. Accordingly, this case 

is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings 

in accordance with this opinion. 

Justice / 
We Concur: