Title: WIGHT v HUGHES LIVESTOCK CO INC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-053
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 7, 1981

NO. 81-53 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 GENE WIGHT, Claimant and Respondent, -vs- HUGHES LIVESTOCK CO., INC., Employer, and MOUNTAIN WEST FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: R . V . Bottomly, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: July 2, 1981 ' ^ f QCT OJUI~ Filed: M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an appeal by Mountain West Farm Bureau Mutual I n s u r a n c e Company (Farm Bureau) from a judgment of t h e Workers1 Compensation Court. The c l a i m a n t , Gene Wight, was found t o be t o t a l l y and permanently d i s a b l e d and was awarded compensation b e n e f i t s , costs, and a t t o r n e y f e e s . I n a d d i t i o n , a 20% s t a t u t o r y p e n a l t y was a s s e s s e d by t h e Workers' Compensation Court a g a i n s t Farm Bureau. On February 1 5 1977, while employed a s a ranch hand f o r Hughes L i v e s t o c k Company, Inc. , Wight s u f f e r e d compensable i n j u r i e s a s a r e s u l t of an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . H e was pinned between t h e s t e e r i n g wheel of t h e t r a c t o r he was d r i v i n g and a n u p l i f t e d front-end l o a d e r of a n o t h e r t r a c t o r . H e was h o s p i t a - l i z e d e i g h t days f o r h i s i n j u r i e s . A f t e r h i s r e l e a s e from t h e h o s p i t a l , he r e t u r n e d t o t h e Hughes ranch and resumed h i s d u t i e s a s a ranch hand. S h o r t l y a£ ter r e t u r n i n g to t h e ranch, Wight submitted a t i m e l y c l a i m f o r compensation t o Farm Bureau. O n t h e claim form h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t he had s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s to h i s r i b s and c h e s t . Farm Bureau paid W i g h t ' s medical expenses and l o s t wages. Wight made no f u r t h e r c l a i m f o r b e n e f i t s u n t i l 1979 a t which t i m e he claimed b e n e f i t s f o r back i n j u r i e s a l l e g e d l y suf- f e r e d a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t . Farm Bureau r e f u s e d to pay compensation b e n e f i t s and Wight f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e Workers1 Compensation Court. A h e a r i n g w a s held and Wight was found t o be t o t a l l y and permanently d i s a b l e d a s a r e s u l t of i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t . Farm Bureau r a i s e s f i v e i s s u e s on appeal : 1. Whether a t i m e l y n o t i c e of i n j u r i e s was f i l e d a s is r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 39-71-603 MCA. 2. Whether t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o sup- p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t 1 s p r e - e x i s t i n g s p i n a l d i s e a s e was a g g r a v a t e d o r a c c e l e r a t e d by t h e a c c i d e n t of February 1 5 , 1977. 3. Whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t a l l o w i n g Farm Bureau to i n t r o d u c e i n e v i d e n c e t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y of D r . James T. L o v i t t . 4. Whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Court e r r e d i n imposing a 20% p e n a l t y i n t h i s case. 5. Whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Court e r r e d i n awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e c l a i m a n t . I n r e g a r d to t h e f i r s t i s s u e , Farm Bureau c o n t e n d s t h a t Wight f a i l e d to g i v e t i m e l y n o t i c e of t h e back i n j u r i e s he alle- g e d l y s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t , and t h a t c o n s e q u e n t l y t h e Workers Compensation Court lacked j u r i s - d i c t i o n to award him b e n e f i t s . I t is uncontested t h a t Wight f i l e d a t i m e l y claim f o r com- p e n s a t i o n f o r i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d as a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t . On t h e claim form, however, he i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e p a r t s . of h i s body which were i n j u r e d were h i s r i b s and h i s c h e s t . H e d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y i n d i c a t e on t h a t form t h a t h i s back had been i n j u r e d also. Farm Bureau a r g u e s t h a t Wight f a i l e d to g i v e n o t i c e of t h e " n a t u r e of h i s i n j u r y " , and t h e r e f o r e f a i l e d to meet t h e s t a t u - t o r y n o t i c e requirement of sect i o n 39-71-603 , MCA, which p r o v i - d e s as f o l l o w s : "No claim to r e c o v e r b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers1 Compensation A c t , f o r i n j u r i e s n o t r e s u l t i n g i n d e a t h , may be c o n s i d e r e d compensable u n l e s s , w i t h i n 60 d a y s af ter t h e o c c u r r e n c e of t h e acci- d e n t which is claimed to have caused t h e i n j u r y , n o t i c e of t h e t i m e and p l a c e where t h e a c c i d e n t o c c u r r e d and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n j u r y is g i v e n -- t o t h e employer or t h e e m p l o y e r ' s i n s u r e r by t h e i n j u r e d employee or someone on t h e employee's b e h a l f . Actual knowledge of t h e a c c i d e n t and i n j u r y on t h e p a r t of t h e employer or t h e employer1 s managing a g e n t or s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i n c h a r g e of t h e work upon which t h e i n j u r e d employee w a s engaged a t t h e t i m e of t h e i n j u r y is e q u i v a l e n t t o n o t i c e ." ( Emphasis added. ) I t is Farm B u r e a u ' s p o s i t i o n t h a t n o t i c e of one s p e c i f i c i n j u r y is i n s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of a n o t h e r s p e c i f i c i n j u r y caused by t h e same a c c i d e n t . It c o n t e n d s t h a t n o t i c e of t h e c h e s t and r i b i n j u r i e s was i n s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e of any back i n j u r i e s t h a t Wight may have s u f f e r e d as a r e s u l t of t h e same a c c i d e n t . Farm Bureau a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e Wight d i d n o t comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n , t h e Workers' Compensation Court lacked j u r i s - d i c t i o n to make an award i n t h i s case. W e d i s a g r e e . There is no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t an employee must g i v e n o t i c e of each s e p a r a t e i n j u r y r e c e i v e d i n an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t p a r t i c u l a r l y where, as h e r e , c l a i m a n t w a s f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e , having t e r m i n a t e d h i s s c h o o l i n g i n t h e t h i r d g r a d e . Wight was i n compliance w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t when he n o t i f i e d t h e i n s u r e r of h i s a c c i d e n t and t h e f a c t t h a t he had been i n j u r e d . "The purpose of t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t . . . is t o e n a b l e t h e employer t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f by prompt i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e claimed a c c i d e n t and prompt t r e a t m e n t of t h e i n j u r y involved w i t h a view toward minimizing its e f f e c t s by p r o p e r medical c a r e . " Bender v. Roundup Mining Company ( 1 9 6 0 ) 138 Mont. 306, 313, 356 P.2d 469, 473. The purpose u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r e a r l y r e p o r t i n g of i n j u r i e s was f u l f i l l e d i n t h i s case. The claim form s u b m i t t e d by Wight provided t h e i n s u r e r w i t h a l l of t h e i n f o r - mation it needed to e n a b l e it t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a c c i d e n t and d e t e r m i n e t h e e x t e n t of Wight' s i n j u r i e s . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t made by t h e Supreme J u d i c i a l C o u r t of Maine: " [I] t is n e c e s s a r y t o remember t h a t when an a c c i d e n t h a s o c c u r r e d , t h e employee who makes h i s r e p o r t of what seems t o be a r e l a t i v e l y minor i n j u r y u s u a l l y does so w i t h o u t guidance of c o u n s e l . I n complete good f a i t h , through l a c k of e d u c a t i o n or s o p h i s t i c a t i o n , he may d e s c r i b e h i s ' i n j u r y ' i n less t h a n f u l l d e t a i l , not r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n may later become c r u c i a l f o r o b t a i n i n g b e n e f i t s under t h e A c t . . . . Employees who are i n j u r e d i n a c c i - d e n t s may n o t s p e c i f y e v e r y r e s u l t i n g p a i n or d i s c o m f o r t t h e y may s u f f e r a t t h e t i m e of r e p o r t i n g , having a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t most of t h o s e p a i n s and d i s c o m f o r t s w i l l soon d i s a p p e a r . Furthermore, an employee who h a s g i v e n i n good f a i t h an adequate r e p o r t of t h e t i m e , p l a c e , c a u s e , and o b v i o u s l y i n j u r i o u s con- sequences of an a c c i d e n t may n o t r e c o g n i z e t h e need t o supplement h i s i n i t i a l r e p o r t a t a later d a t e i f a c o n d i t i o n thought unimportant a t t h e t i m e of r e p o r t i n g e v e n t u a l l y proves to be s e r i o u s . " C l a r k v. DeCoster Egg Farms (Me. 1980) 1 421 A.2d 939 1 942-943. W e hold t h a t Wight d i d comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t of s e c t i o n 39-71-603, MCA, and t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation Court d i d have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award t h e c l a i m a n t b e n e f i t s . The second i s s u e for review is t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i - dence t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t g s p r e - e x i s t i n g s p i n a l d i s e a s e was aggravated o r a c c e l e r a t e d by h i s a c c i d e n t of February 1 5 , 1977. W e n o t e t h a t t h e Workers1 Compensation Court d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y and e x p r e s s l y make such a f i n d i n g . However, such f i n d i n g is n e c e s s a r i l y implied by t h e C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t was t o t a l l y and permanently d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t of com- p e n s a b l e i n j u r i e s he r e c e i v e d i n h i s a c c i d e n t of February 1 5 , 1977, because t h e i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i n t h a t a c c i d e n t were h i s o n l y compensable i n j u r i e s . Claimant t e s t i f i e d he r e c e i v e d a back i n j u r y i n t h a t acci- d e n t which h a s d i s a b l e d him and he produced t h e s h i r t he was wearing a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t showing t h a t t i n e s from t h e front-end l o a d e r of t h e tractor had p i e r c e d and t o r n a h o l e i n it. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e n u r s e ' s n o t e s and h o s p i t a l c h a r t s indicated t h a t c l a i m a n t had complained about h i s back c o n d i t i o n d u r i n g h i s h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n f o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t . Although D r . Lefever , c l a i m a n t g s a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , deposed t h a t nothing i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s t r e a t m e n t of c l a i m a n t r e v e a l e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a n i n j u r y t o t h e lumbar s p i n e nor was t h e r e any s u g g e s t i o n of an a g g r a v a t i o n of c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l a b n o r m a l i t y and D r . Avery deposed t h a t t h e p r o g r e s s i o n of c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l d i s e a s e had n o t h i n g to do with t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t , t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s s i m p l y produced a c o n f l i c t i n t h e e v i d e n c e . W e have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d : " I f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s are based on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e . . . t h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on review is con£ ined to d e t e r - mining whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence on t h e whole r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g such f i n d i n g s . " Harmon v. Deaconess H o s p i t a l ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 623 P.2d 1372, 1374, 38 St.Rep. 65, 67-68, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Such is t h e case h e r e . W e hold t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e sup- p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The n e x t i s s u e is whether t h e Workers1 Compensation Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w Farm Bureau to i n t r o - d uce i n e v i d e n c e t h e d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y of D r . James T. ~ o v i t t . D r . L o v i t t was n o t l i s t e d a s a w i t n e s s i n t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r and no n o t i c e was g i v e n u n t i l s e v e r a l months a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g t h a t Farm Bureau d e s i r e d to depose him. D r . L o v i t t had n e v e r s e e n c l a i m a n t nor examined him. The Workers' Compensation Judge h a s broad d i s c r e t i o n i n determining whether to a l l o w such d e p o s i t i o n to be t a k e n p a r t i c u l a r l y where, a s h e r e , t h e r e q u e s t is u n t i m e l y and i n v i o l a t i o n of Rule 2.52.211 o f t h e Workers1 Compensation Court. The f o u r t h i s s u e is whether t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t e r r e d i n imposing s t a t u t o r y p e n a l t i e s i n t h i s case. The Workers' Compensation Court is empowered to i n c r e a s e an award by 20% i f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 39-71-2907, MCA, are m e t . S e c t i o n 39-71-2907, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "When payment of compensation h a s been unreaso- n a b l y d e l a y e d or r e f u s e d by an i n s u r e r , e i t h e r - p r i o r or s u b s e q u e n t to t h e i s s u a n c e of an o r d e r b y t h e workers ' compensation judge g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t compensation b e n e f i t s , t h e f u l l amount o f t h e compensation b e n e f i t s due a c l a i m a n t , be- tween t h e time compensation b e n e f i t s were delayed o r r e f u s e d and t h e d a t e of t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g a c l a i m a n t compensation b e n e f i t s , may be i n c r e a s e d b y t h e workers' compensation judge by 20%. The q u e s t i o n of unreasonable d e l a y o r r e f u s a l s h a l l b e determined by t h e workers' compensation judge, and such a f i n d i n g c o n s t i t u t e s good cause t o r e s c i n d , a l t e r , or amend any o r d e r , d e c i s i o n , o r award p r e v i o u s l y made i n t h e cause f o r t h e purpose of making t h e i n c r e a s e provided h e r e i n ." ( Emphasis added. ) Whether an a c t i o n is "unreasonable" under t h i s s t a t u t e is a q u e s t i o n of f a c t which is s u b j e c t on a p p e a l to t h e l i m i t e d review of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l evidence test. Smith v. P i e r c e packing C o . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 267, 581 P.2d 834. I f t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of " u n r e a s o n a b l e n e s s " , t h i s Court c a n n o t o v e r t u r n t h e f i n d i n g . A f t e r c a r e f u l l y reviewing t h e e n t i r e record i n t h i s case, w e f a i l t o f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t Farm Bureau u n r e a s o n a b l y d e l a y e d o r r e f u s e d compensation b e n e f i t s . When t h e 1977 claim f o r compensation was s u b m i t t e d , Farm Bureau promptly paid c l a i m a n t ' s medical expenses and l o s t wages. Farm Bureau discon- t i n u e d payments when c l a i m a n t r e t u r n e d t o work. Nothing f u r t h e r o c c u r r e d u n t i l 1979 when c l a i m a n t con- tended f o r t h e f i r s t time t h a t he had become permanently and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d as a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t . Farm Bureau r e f used to honor t h i s c l a i m contending t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y d i d n o t r e s u l t from t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t and went t o h e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e . There was a bona f i d e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r any c a u s a l connec- t i o n between t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t and c l a i m a n t ' s p r e s e n t d i s a b i l i t y . D r . L e f e v e r , c l a i m a n t ' s a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , found nothing i n h i s c o u r s e of t r e a t m e n t of c l a i m a n t t h a t r e v e a l e d a p o s s i b i l i t y of a n i n j u r y to c l a i m a n t ' s lumbar s p i n e i n t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t n o r any s u g g e s t i o n of an a g g r a v a t i o n of c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l a b n o r m a l i t y as a r e s u l t of t h a t a c c i d e n t . D r . Avery s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r o g r e s s i o n o f c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l d i s e a s e had n o t h i n g to do with t h e 1977 a c c i d e n t a l t h o u g h t h e a c c i d e n t d i d make c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l con- d i t i o n c l i n i c a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e . Farm Bureau should n o t be sub- j e c t e d to t h e s t a t u t o r y 20% p e n a l t y f o r unreasonably r e f u s i n g o r d e l a y i n g payment of b e n e f i t s u n t i l t h e f a c t u a l d i s p u t e w a s r e s o l v e d . T h i s f i n d i n g and award must be set a s i d e . The l a s t i s s u e r a i s e d by Farm Bureau is whether t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s was p r o p e r i n t h i s case. The Workers' Compensation Court concluded t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t was e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from Farm Bureau p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 39-71-611, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : " I n t h e e v e n t an i n s u r e r d e n i e s l i a b i l i t y f o r a c l a i m f o r compensation or t e r m i n a t e s compensation b e n e f i t s and t h e c l a i m is later adjudged compensable by t h e workersv compen- s a t i o n judge o r on a p p e a l , t h e i n s u r e r s h a l l pay reason- a b l e costs and a t t o r n e y s v f e e s as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e workers compensation judge." I n t h i s c a s e Farm Bureau d i d deny l i a b i l i t y f o r a claim f o r com- p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s which was later ad j udged compensable; t h e r e f o r e , t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was p r o p e r . The Workersv Compensation C o u r t v s judgment is modified to e x c l u d e t h e award of t h e 20% i n c r e a s e i n b e n e f i t s . The judgment a s modified is a f f i r m e d . ................................... Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: