Montana labor news., 1936-02-27
Supreme Court Liberal
ICES Compensation Act
Decisions Very Explicit in Rela-
ton to When and Under What
Circumstances Injured Person
or Widow Is Entitled to Com
pensation.

So also, although the statute declar.
es that for an accident causing tota.
blindness in m eye, compensation i:
to be awarded for but 100 weeks, il
a one-eyed workman lose his only eye
the court declares that he shall be rat
ed as totally disabled and compensated
for the full 500 weeks less what he
has therefore received, if anything, for
the loss OF his first eye, for by the loss
OF his only eye he is incapacitated to
the same extent as though he had lost
both eyes in a single accident. (Mc-
Daniel v. Eagle Coal Co. 90 Mont. 800
Matthew'S.
And, while the claimant must show
that his injury was the proximate cause
of his existing condition for which he
seeks compensation, (Kerns v. A. C. M.
Go. 81 Mont. $40 Matthew'S, many
men suffer from ailments which OF
themselves are not sufficient to incapa-
citate them from doing a full days
work, yet render them more sucepti-
BILE to become incapacitated through
Injury than is a man in normal health.
The supreme court has held that, if
such a man al show, reasonably, that
his former condition was aggravated
by his injury to such an extent that
it left him disabled, although another
would have recovered, he is entitled to
compensation the casual connection"
is established. (Murphy v. Ind. Acc.
Board, 90 Mont. 1-Angstman). Like
wise, where an incapacitated workman
can show, with reasonable certainty,
that, although his incapacity is due not
to being crippled by an accident, but
by an ailment or disease, caused, set
up or aggravated by the injury, he is
entitled to compensation. Thus a
young man was stricken by palsy shor-
tly after sustaining an injury to his
back and became wholly disabled by
reason OF the palsy; on proof hat pal
sy often follows injury, the decision Of
the board denying him compensation
was reversed and the claimant awarded
compensation (Moffett v. Bozeman
Canning Co. 95 Mont. 347- Matthew'S.
Where a workman suffered IRON arth-
ritis after an injury would have heal
ed, his disability is the same as though
it was the direct result Of the Gripping
OF a member by the injury, sykes v.
Republic Coal Company, "a Mont, go
Matthews), and this is so even where
the workman had had arthritis for
years prior to his injury, but had been
able to work before, but not after
wards, Mezarnich v. Republic Coal Co.
mot yet published-Matthews). This
is SO even though the workman is SUI
fering from a neurotic condition rath-
er than actual disability and could
work if he had the will power to throw
off his condition, but lacks the pow
err, (Sykes V. Republic Coal Co., 90
Mont. 239-M Matthew'S. Again it is
held that, although the injury must re-
suit from an accident" arising out
OF the employment, there is suffici-
ent causal connection between the en-
ployment and injury to entitle the wild
ow to compensation where a mine fore
man killed a station-tender, in a fit
of anger, because the deceased has
signalled the engineer to hoist the
cage to the surface instead of to a
certain level. willis ". Pilot Min. Co.
So Mont. 20 Matthew'S.
So, where a workman who suffers
from a heart ailment, but is still able
to work, is killed by an accident which
would not, perhaps, has affected him
had he not had such ailment, his wild
ow is nevertheless entitled to the com
p@ensation which the statute fixes for
accidental death. Nicholson v. Roun-
dup Coal Co. 70 Mont. 358-M Matthew'S.
In this case the deceased, coming
off shift in an overheated condition
was required to leave the mine throu-
Oh an air shaft in which he was sub
jected to a strong draft Of cold air,
the shock causing the stoppage of a
weak heart.
In like manner where a man with
weak heart was forced to submit to
a blast Of hot air and succumbed, the
widow was entitled to receive compen-
sation (Birdwell v. Three Forks Gem
ent Co. 90 Mont. 483-Stewart).
And although the statute provides
that the maximum compensation for
partial disability is payment for $50
weeks (Sec. 2914 prior to amendment),
it vas held that, for the loss of an
arm from the elbow down, was COM
pensable under the loss of member
section, and reading the two togeth-
er the award should be made at the
weekly rate found multiplied by 1870
weeks and the total spread wei but
$50 weeks, thus giving the injured
workman the maximum that could be
allowed under the act as a whole mo
yak v. Ind. Acc. Board, 70 Mont. 1876
Matthew'S,
Proof that the condition Of disabil-
ity resulted from the injury caused
by accident, may be made by circum-
stantial evidence and in this connec-
ton, testimony Of medical experts to
the contrary is not binding on the
or the courts where the doctors
admit that the medical profession does
not know the cause of the condition.
(Moffett v. Bozeman Can. Co. 95 Mont.
347- Matthew'S.
Under the Act, the compensation is
by a determination as to wheth-
the disability of partial or total and,
as to either, whether temporary or
permanent (Section ~2o12-2o14, as amen
ded Oh. III, Laws of 1920, Wheth-
er partial or total depends upon whe-
Their or not the disabled mar is
to labor and thereby earn wages;
is he rarro+ - =. 4oA.ff.. 1...l1.1 -