Title: JENSEN v ZOOK CONST CO ARGONAU
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13671
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 31, 1977

No. 13671 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 HARLEN JENSEN, Claimant and Respondent, ZOOK BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., Employer, and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant, Harris, Jackson & Utick, Helena, Montana Aridrew J. Utick argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Harrison, Loendorf & Poston, Helena, Montana Jerome T. Loendorf argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: June 7, 1977 Decided: ' . , Filed: 6- ' j . . -/ - - _ I - -&- Clerk M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant-insurer, Argonaut Insurance Company appeals from the findings of f a c t and conclusions of law, order and judgment of the workers' compensation court. The workers' compensation court ruled insurer was liable t o claimant for compensation benefits due as the result of claimant's industrial injury . On August 28, 1974, claimant suffered an industrial injury i n the course of h i s employment with Zook Brothers Construction Co. A n examining physician described the injury as a severe crushing injury t o the l e f t hand. Ckimant incurred the injury when he was i n the process of greasing a backhoe, one of claimant's duties as an o i l e r on heavy equipment. The backhoe operator moved the backhoe bucket,cruaking claimant's hand. The insurer accepted l i a b i l i t y for claimant's injury and made compensation payments t o claimant for temporary t o t a l dis- a b i l i t y during the period August 28, 1974, through October 3, 1975, pursuant t o section 92-701.1,R.G.M. 1947. Claimant's disability status was changed t o permanent p a r t i a l disability and disability benefits were paid during the period October 4, 1975 through March 26, 1976. By l e t t e r dated October 10, 1975, insurer invited claimant t o discuss a f i n a l settlement of the claim; the parties failed t o reach any agreement on settlement of the claim. By l e t t e r dated M a y 24, 1976, insurer advised claimant it had paid a l l benefits which claimant was entitled t o under the Montana Workers' Compensation Act. O n June 14, 1976 claimant f i l e d a petition for hearing with the workers' compensation court alleging claimant was t o t a l l y disabled as a result of h i s indus- t r i a l injury of August 28, 1974, and was wrongfully refused com- pensation benefits. Claimant sought a ruling of the workers' compensation court ordering that: "1. Claimant continues t o be totally disabled a s a result of his industrial injury of January 1, 1976. "2. That Defendant insurer wrongfully refused t o reinstate by-weekly compensation and i n accordance with Section 92-701.1, R.C.M. 1947, the Claimant is en- t i t l e d to temporary t o t a l disability payments a t the weekly rate provided by law, rectroactive t o March 26, 1976, and is entitled to weekly temporary t o t a l disability payments a s long a s Claimant continues t o be temporarily totally disabled a s a result of h i s industrial injury. "3. Claimant is entitled t o that amount of compensation which represents the difference betwken the rate of compensation he was paid and the rate he should have been paid between August 28, 1974 and March 26, 1976. 4 The Defendant has unreasonably refused to reinstate compensation payments, and in accordance with Section 92-849, R.C.M. 1947, Claimant is entitled to an increased award of ten (10) per cent in accrued weekly compensation benefits. "5. In accordance with Section 92-616, R.C.M. 1947, the insurer shall pay reasonable costs and attorneys fees." (Emphasis added.) Hearing was held before the workers' compensation court on August 31, 1976. On November 15, 1976, the workers' compensa- tion court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and order holding: " C O N C L U S I O N S OF LAW ' 1 That the claimant Harlen Jensen, was injured in the course of his employment with the Zook Brothers Construction Company on the 28th day of August, 1974. "2. That the claimant is totally disabled within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Law. "3. That the Defendant, Argonaut Insurance Company, is liable to the claimant for a l l compensation provided by the Workers' Compensation laws of the state of Montana, which are due as a result of the injuries received by claimant on August 28, 1974. "4. That claimant is entitled to the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and for costs expended i n the course of the workers' Compensation hearing and prep- atattons for the same." (Emphasis added.) On December 6, 1976, the insurer petitioned the workers' compensation court for rehearing. Insurer' s petition for re- hearing was denied and judgment was entered for claimant on Deceinber 9, 1976. The workers' compensation caurt's judgment adopted the court's conclusions of law, set out heretofore, and set claimant's attorney fees and costs at $937.50. On December 10, 1976, the Division of Workers' Compensation issued a memorandum. It reads in pertinent part: "The impairment rating as given by the attending physician of 5% has been paid out. There is no indication whether the Judge in his conclusion No. 2 refers to temporary total disability or permanent total disability, nor does it refer to any specific amount of compensation. Under the circumstances, I am unable to request the carrier to make any payments until we have some clarification as to what should have been ordered." Insurer appeals directly to this Court, from the final judgment of the workers' compensation court, pursuant to section 9 2 - 8 5 2 ( 2 ) , R . C . M . 1947. McAlear v . Arthur G . McKee & Co., Mont. , 558 P . 2 d 1134, 33 St.Rep. 1337; Skrukrud v . Gallatin Laundry Co., Inc., - Mont . , 557 P . 2 d 278, 33 St.Rep. 1191. The insurer presents two issues on review: 1 . Whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law and order,and judgment of the workers' compensation court are intelligible and capable of comprehension? 2 . If the first issue is resolved in the affirmative, whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the workers' compensation court? The law is clear in Montana that the findings and decision of the workers' compensation court are presumed to be correct and if supported by credible evidence, must be affirmed. McAlear v. Arthur G . McKee & Co., supra; Skrukrud v . Gallatin Laundry G o . , Inc., supra; Miller v . City of Billings, Mont . 3 555 P . 2 d 747, 33 St.Rep. 984. . The initial obstacle confronting this Court is determining the meaning of the conclusions of law and judgment of the workers' compensation court. The issues which confronted the workers' compensation court were: 1 . Whethet claimant is presently disabled, within the meaning of the Montana Workers' Compensation Act? 2 . If claimant is found to be disabled, whether claimant's disability is total or partial, permanent or temporary? 3. To what amount of compensation is claimant entitled? The workers' compensation court concluded "claimant is totally disabled within the meaning of the Workers ' Compensation Law" and insurer "is liable to the claimant for all compensation provided by the Workers' Compensation laws of the state of Montana". Such a holding is incomplete and fails to provide this Court with a final judgment capable of being reviewed on appeal. We refrain from considering the second issue on appeal-- there is whether/substantial evidence to support the findings of the workers' compensation court, until its decision is clarified. The cause is remanded to the workers' compensation court for clarification, consistent with & We concur: " 7 I 1 , /. .i , / & Chief Justice Justices.