Title: MILLER v CITY OF BILLINGS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13204
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 18, 1976

No. 13204 I N T H E SUPREME COURT OF WE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 GEORGE MILLER, Claimant and Respondent, CITY OF BILLINGS and STATE INSURANCE FUND, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Harris, Jackson & Utick, Helena, Montana Andrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Joseph P. Hennessey argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: September 10, 1976 Decided: 3 g ~ 1 2 ;c?;fj M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendants appeal from the decision of the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, overturning the Workmen's Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board denial of benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act, T i t l e 92, R.C.M. 1947. Claimant George Miller was employed by the City of Billings sanitation department for several years, and was assigned t o the Billings l a n d f i l l dump i n 1963 t o operate a dozer covering garbage. O n April 5, 1966, claimant was "gassed1' by diesel fumes from equipment and smoke from burning trash while working a t the dump. H e was taken home by a co-worker and h i s wife then took him t o the emergency room of the Billings Deaconess Hospital where he was treated and released. The following day he was treated by a physician and he returned t o work the next week. N o claim o r notification of t h i s accident was given t o h i s employers or t o the Workmen's Compensation Division, Claimant continued t o work a t the c i t y dump u n t i l h i s dismissal i n October 1970. O n July 21, 1971 [ 5 years and 2 months a f t e r the gassing incident] claimant consulted D r . A. Movius, a Billings physician, complaining of a severe cough and general debilitation he claimed began a t the time of the gassing incident a t the Billings landfill. The diagnosis: pulmonary fibrosis, scarring of the tubes carrying a i r into the lung's smaller c e l l s . O n June 5, 1972, claimant f i l e d a claim for recovery under the Workmen's Compensation Act. H i s claim was administratively denied. O n January 31, 1973, claimant requested a hearing t o adjudicate the l i a b i l i t y of the City of Billings under the "Occupational Disease Act, R.C.M. Section 92-1304." A t a Division hearing on March 22, 1973, claimant's attorney elected "to proceed under the Occupational Disease Act, R.C.M., Section 92-1304." Following the hearing, claimant was referred t o a pulmonary specialist, D r . Harry Power, pursuant t o the provisions of the Occupational Disease Act. B y reports dated May 11, 1973 and June 5, 1973, D r . Power stated he was unable t o r e l a t e claimant's condition t o employment rather than t o h i s cigarette smoking without further studies, including an open lung biopsy. Claimant notified the Division he would not submit t o the open lung biopsy. H e was referred t o a second pulmonary specialist, D r . J. P. Byorth, i n an effort t o resolve the matter. D r . Byorth concurred i n D r . power's opinions and recommended a lung biopsy be performed t o determine i f the pulmonary disease of claimant w a s work related. Prior t o a decision by the Division, claimant changed the status of h i s claim from occupational disease t o that of an industrial accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In an order dated April 26, 1974, the Division denied the claim both - as an occupational disease and as an industrial accident. Claimant appealed t o the d i s t r i c t court which reversed the Division order and awarded compensation on the basis of an industrial accident a t 65% of the claimant's wage loss. The d i s t r i c t court also remanded t o the Division for determination of actual wage loss. D r . Movius, claimant's physician was the only witness testifying a t the d i s t r i c t court hearing. H i s testimony was primarily a recapitulation of the testimony given before the Division--that claimant's condition was caused by many years of exposure t o smoke and fumes a t the landfill. The Division called no witnesses and offered objection t o the claim either as an occupational disease o r a s an i n d u s t r i a l accident because t h e claim was f i l e d long a f t e r the expiration of the claim f i l i n g period s e t f o r t h i n the respective a c t s . The findings and decision of the Workmen's Compensation Division a r e presumed t o be correct and i f supported by credible evidence must be affirmed. Section 92-822, R.C.M. 1947 (since repealed); Birnie v. United States Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39,44, 328 P.2d 133; Hurlbut v. Vollstedt Kerr Co., - Mont . - 9 538 P.2d 344,347, 32 St. Rep. 752,755. The d i s t r i c t court must affirm the Division order i f the evidence does not c l e a r l y preponderate against i t s findings. Becktold v. Ind.Acc.Bd., 137 Mont. 119, 125, 350 P.2d 383; Stordahl v. Rush Implement Co., 148 Mont. 13, 417 P.2d 95; 3 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, 580.20. Section 92-834, R.C.M. 1947, ( i n e f f e c t i n 1966, but since repealed) provided the d i s t r i c t court may, upon good cause shown admit additional evidence. Section 92-835, R.C.M. 1947 ( i n e f f e c t i n 1966, but since repealed), provided t h a t i f t h i s addi- t i o n a l evidence i s substantial, the d i s t r i c t court may be j u s t i f i e d i n reversing the Division even though t h e evidence adduced before the Division c l e a r l y preponderates i n favor of i t s order. Murphy v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board, 93 Mont. 1, 16 P.2d 705; Hurlbut v. Vollstedt Kerr Co., supra. Where the appeal t o the d i s t r i c t court i s heard only on the Division's c e r t i f i e d record o r when the d i s t r i c t court permits additional evidence t o be introduced t h a t is not important o r adds nothing new t o the case, the court i s bound by the same r u l e of appeal which applies where the appeal i s heard only on the c e r t i f i e d record and t h e Division i s e n t i t l e d t o a presumption the case w a s decided correctly. Kelly v. West Coast Const. Co., 106 Mont. 463, 78 P.2d 1078; McAndrews v. Schwartz, 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379; Erhart v. Great Western Sugar Co., Mont . 9 546 P.2d 1055, 33 St. Rep. 302. In the instant case, the only testimony at the district court hearing was from Dr. Movius, which added nothing new or important to the evfdence adduced at the Division hearing. Defendants are entitled to a presumption before this Court that the Division decision was correct. The Division's denial of claimant's claim on the basis that no work-rela t e d injury or accident was established is justified. Claimant asserts the 1966 "gassing" was an accident which resulted in an injury and that subsequent daily exposures were also "acci- dents" which resulted in his disease. The definition of "Injury or injured" in 1966 (before amendment in 1967 and 1973) as it appeared in section 92-418, R . C . M . 1947, was: "* * * a tangible happening of a traumatic nature from an unexpected cause, resulting in either external or internal physical harm, and such physical condition as a result therefrom and excluding disease not traceable to injury." In Miller v. Sundance Recreation, Inc., 151 Mont. 223, 230, 441 P.2d 194, the Court said the test as established in Lupien v. Montana Record Publishing Co., 143 Mont. 415, 419, 390 P.2d 455, is "whether or not there was something unusual or out of the ordinary (unexpected) as it pertained to the performance of the task which brought about an unexpected result of disability." In the instant case claimant was doing his usual work in the expected way at all times. His exposure to dust and smoke was a normal incident of employment at the landfill dump. His pulmonary fibrosis falls outside the definition of injury provided in section 92-418, R.C.M. 1947. Profitt v. J. G. Watts Construction Co., 143 Mont. 210, 387 P.2d 703. Dr. Movius, claimant's witness, testified the condition developed over a long period of time and was "of insidious onset with gradual building up of the irritation" and was not triggered by any single episode. This is not an injury as contemplated by the statute. It is also clear claimant' s pulmonary fibrosis is a disease, progressive in nature, and is not "traceable to injury" and not within the requirement of the statute. Claimant is also barred from recovery by his failure to file a claim for compensation within one year of the date of his alleged accident, as required by section 92-601, R.C.M. 1947, This claim was filed 5 years and 2 months after the alleged accidental injury of April 1966, and 1 year and 7 months after claimant's employment was terminated by the City of Billings. The filing requirements of section 92-601, R.C.M. 1947, are manda- tory in nature and compliance is essential to the existence of a right to have proceedings to compel payment of compensation. Williams v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 96 Mont. 204, 29 P.2d 649; Klein v. Independent Wholesale Associated Grocers, 167 Mont. 341, 538 P.2d 1358, 32 St. Rep. 738. In this case, neither the employer nor the Division was apprised of the ''gassing" of April 1966 until over 5 years after it occurred and over 1 year after termination of claimant's em- ployment. Claimant although plagued from the time of the gassing to the present day by shortness of breath, weakness, coughing and other symptoms of chronic disease, failed to file a timely claim. This is not a case where we are dealing with a latent injury. For the reasons discussed in this opinion, the decision of the district court is reversed. We Concur: