Title: WISE v PERKINS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-001
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: January 6, 1983

No. 82-01 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 DORIS WISE, Claimant and Respondent, RUTH PERKINS, d/b/a HIDEAWAY, Employer, and ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable Tim Reardon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: James P. Harrington, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Greg J. Skakles, Anaconda, Montana 59711 JAii L :..;;3 Filed: -- Submitted on briefs: October 26, 1982 Decided: January 6, 1983 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 C o u r t . Claimant was awarded temporary total d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s , m e d i c a l expenses, and attor- ney f e e s by a September 1 5 , 1981, judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . Employer now a p p e a l s . C l a i m a n t , Doris Wise, was employed by Ruth P e r k i n s , d/b/a Hideaway, a b a r - r e s t a u r a n t combination i n Anaconda. She began working a t t h e Hideaway i n August 1976, as a j a n i t r e s s . T h i s work r e q u i r e d h e r to c l e a n t h e b u s i n e s s premises seven days a week. She began a t 6:00 a . m . and worked t w o to two and one-half h o u r s on week days and f o u r to f i v e hours on S a t u r d a y and Sunday. Her d u t i e s included mopping, sweeping and b u f f i n g t h e f l o o r s , c l e a n i n g t h e bathrooms, and dumping garbage. I n September 1976, c l a i m a n t began to bartend one e i g h t hour s h i f t on Sundays i n a d d i t i o n to h e r j a n i t o r i a l work. Then, i n November 1977, she began b a r t e n d i n g Monday through S a t u r d a y and worked e i t h e r s i x or e i g h t hour s h i f t s each n i g h t i n a d d i t i o n to c l e a n i n g each day. T h i s work p a t t e r n continued u n t i l h e r employment t e r m i n a t e d on A p r i l 28, 1978. On December 28, 1977, employer's b r o t h e r and ex-husband were k i l l e d i n a p l a n e c r a s h . A 1 1 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e Hideaway from t h a t d a t e to J a n u a r y 12, 1978, f e l l on c l a i m a n t . T h i s d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r e d t h e work c l a i m a n t w a s r e q u i r e d to perform. During t h i s p e r i o d , c l a i m a n t a r r i v e d a t t h e Hideaway a t 6:00 a . m . and c l e a n e d , s t o c k e d t h e coolers, opened t h e b a r a t 10 :00 a . m . , and bartended u n t i l l a t e a f t e r n o o n or e a r l y evening. She would t h e n be r e l i e v e d f o r a few hours b e f o r e she r e t u r n e d to t e n d b a r u n t i l c l o s i n g a t 2:00 a . m . Although c l a i m a n t w a s g e n e r a l l y p e r m i t t e d to sit on a s t o o l behind t h e bar d u r i n g s l a c k times a t work, she d i d n o t have t h e t i m e to do so to any e x t e n t d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d . New Year's Eve was p a r t i c u l a r l y busy and c l a i m a n t was unable to sit down a t a l l . She s t a y e d a t work t h a t n i g h t u n t i l 3;00 a.m. i n o r d e r to c l e a n up p a r t of t h e mess, r e t u r n e d a t 6 ~ 0 0 a . m . to c l e a n and open t h e b a r , and worked a f u l l e i g h t hour s h i f t t e n d i n g t h e b a r . It was t h e n e x t day, J a n u a r y 2, 1978, t h a t s h e f i r s t n o t i c e d a s w e l l i n g and sore s p o t s i n h e r l e g s . From t h a t d a t e forward, she c o n t i n u e d to n o t i c e s w e l l i n g and p a i n i n h e r l e g s and f e e t a f t e r s t a n d i n g or walking. Between J a n u a r y 2, 1978, and A p r i l 28, 1978, c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d to c l e a n t h e premises d a i l y and to bartend s i x weekly s h i f t s of s i x to e i g h t hours each. On A p r i l 28 employer found h e r a t work b a r e f o o t . H e r l e g s were s o swollen t h a t she could not g e t b o o t s o r s h o e s on them. Employer t o l d c l a i m a n t to go home and to have t h e c o n d i t i o n t r e a t e d . C l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n was diagnosed as t h r o m b o p h l e b i t i s of b o t h l e g s . She f i l e d a c l a i m f o r compensation w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n o f Workers Compensation. T h i s matter, by s t i p u l a t i o n of coun- s e l , was submitted to t h e Workerst Compensation Court on t h e d e p o s i t i o n s of c l a i m a n t , employer, D r . John A. Romito, and D r . Richard B e s t i n l i e u of t r i a l . The c o u r t found t h a t c l a i m a n t had s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) , MCA, and awarded h e r temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y , permanent total d i s a b i l i t y , medical e x p e n s e s , and costs and a t t o r n e y f e e s . Employer p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e and scope of h e r employment; 2. Whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e Worker's Compensation Court f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t is permanently, t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d ; and 3. Whether c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d an " i n j u r y " w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119(1), MCA. T h i s Court w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e Workers Compensation Court where 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 its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , See S t a m a t i s v. Bechtel Power CO. (19791, - -- Mont . -- -- I .- -- , 601 P.2d 403, 405, 36 St.Rep. 1866, 1869, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Where f i n d i n g s are based upon con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , o u r f u n c t i o n is t o de t e r m i n e whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e such a s w i l l convince r e a s o n a b l e men sup- p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s . Harmon v. Deaconess H o s p i t a l (1981 ) , -- - - - -. - Mont . - . , 623 P.2d 1372, 1375, 38 St.Rep. 65, 68. Employer c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of evidence to 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 ' s p h l e b i t i s a r o s e i n t h e course and scope o f h e r employment. She a r g u e s f i r s t t h a t c l a i m a n t r a r e l y worked a f o r t y - h o u r week d u r i n g t h e term of h e r employment. Second, s h e a r g u e s t h a t w h i l e prolonged s t a n d i n g i n one s p o t can c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e development of p h l e b i t i s , t h e walking which c l a i m a n t ' s work r e q u i r e d could a c t u a l l y be h e l p f u l r a t h e r t h a n harmful. F i n a l l y , s h e c o n t e n d s t h a t because c l a i m a n t would sit i n one p o s i t i o n and sew on h e r o f f - d u t y h o u r s , t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e cause o f i n j u r y o u t s i d e of t h e c o u r s e and t h e scope of employment is p r e s e n t e d . These arguments f a i l . The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e Workers Compensation Court f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t worked e x c e s s i v e h o u r s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from December 28, 1977, to J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1978. It a l s o s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t then continued to work s i x s h i f t s of s i x to e i g h t h o u r s each p e r week i n a d d i t i o n to h e r c l e a n i n g d u t i e s . Claimant and employer b o t h tes t i £ i e d to cla i m a n t l s i n c r e a s e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and workload from August 1976 u n t i l h e r termi- n a t i o n on A p r i l 28, 1978. Both p h y s i c i a n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t a number of f a c t o r s c a n c o n t r i b u t e to t h e development of p h l e b i t i s , i n c l u d i n g prolonged s t a n d i n g , trauma, h e a r t f a i l u r e , c a n c e r , tumors, pregnancy, and blood d e f i c i e n c i e s . Based upon t h e i r medical e x a m i n a t i o n s and c l a i m a n t I s employment h i s t o r y , t h e d o c t o r s each named t h e stand i n g r e q u i r e d by h e r work as a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r c a u s i n g t h e p h l e b i t i s . D r . Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t based upon a r e a s o n a b l e d e g r e e of medical c e r t a i n t y , c l a i m a n t I s employment d u t i e s were t h e cause of h e r p h l e b i t i s . H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i f an i n d i v i d u a l had a vascu- l a r c o n d i t i o n of p h l e b i t i s , " s t a n d i n g a l o n e , c e r t a i n l y walking, b u t t h e s t a n d i n g a l o n e " would be enough to a g g r a v a t e and i n f a c t c a u s e t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r which he t r e a t e d c l a i m a n t . D r . B e s t also t e s t i f i e d t h a t s t a n d i n g was a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n t h e develop- ment of p h l e b i t i s . Both p h y s i c i a n s e l i m i n a t e d o t h e r f a c t o r s as p o t e n t i a l c a u s e s of t h e p h l e b i t i s , on t h e b a s i s of t h e i r examina- t i o n s and t h e medical h i s t o r i e s t a k e n . Nor does t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t e m p l o y e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t 's p h l e b i t i s could have been caused by s i t t i n g and sewing. D r . B e s t , e m p l o y e r ' s p h y s i c i a n , r e j e c t e d s i t t i n g as a c a u s e of p h l e b i t i s u n l e s s o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s were p r e s e n t . D r . R o m i t o w a s asked i f it were p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e phle- b i t i s was caused by s i t t i n g s t i l l sewing f o r long p e r i o d s of t i m e . H e answered "no." Even when asked to d i s r e g a r d c l a i m a n t ' s employment a c t i v i t i e s and to c o n s i d e r t h e hours of s i t t i n g still i n i s o l a t i o n , he s t a t e d t h a t it would be v e r y unusual f o r t h e s i t t i n g t o cause such a problem. S u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e Workers Compensation 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 ' s i n j u r y was work r e l a t e d . Employer n e x t c h a l l e n g e s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of e v i d e n c e to sup- p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t is permanently t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d . T h i s argument is w i t h o u t merit. Employer founds h e r argument upon t h e d o c t o r s ' t e s t i m o n y t h a t c l a i m a n t "might" be a b l e to perform work t h a t involved some walking. Employer i g n o r e s t h e e x t e n s i v e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t d e m o n s t r a t e s c l a i m a n t ' s c o n t i n u i n g d i s a b i l i t y . D r . R o m i t o t e s t i f i e d t h a t a f t e r close o b s e r v a t i o n and treat- ment of t h e c o n d i t i o n f o r f i v e months w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t im- provement, he a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t c l a i m a n t would c o n t i n u e to s u f f e r from p h l e b i t i s f o r t h e remainder of h e r l i f e . While D r . R o m i t o answered t h a t c l a i m a n t might be a b l e to work i n a p o s i t i o n i n which s h e walked, r a t h e r t h a n s t o o d , t h e answers r e f l e c t e d a " t r y a job and see i f you can handle i t " a t t i t u d e . H e f i r s t s t i p u l a t e d t h a t s h e should wear good custom-made s u p p o r t h o s e , t h a t s h e work v e r y l i m i t e d h o u r s , and t h a t s h e not work as a waitress or b a r t e n d e r . When asked d i r e c t l y whether he would s u g g e s t o r recommend t h a t c l a i m a n t work as a b a r t e n d e r , D r . Romito answered, " a b s o l u t e l y n o t , " and extended t h a t answer to " a n y o c c u p a t i o n which would r e q u i r e s t a n d i n g or walking." D r . B e s t l i m i t e d h i s a p p r o v a l of work, such as sales c l e r k work, to a s i t u a t i o n where c l a i m a n t would be walking around. H e s t a t e d : " [ I ] £ she h a s t o s t a n d around and t a l k to people and n o t move, s h e should avoid t h a t . " Claimant t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e cannot be on h e r f e e t f o r any extended p e r i o d of t i m e and t h a t she must e l e v a t e h e r l e g s or l i e down p e r i o d i c a l l y d u r i n g t h e day to p r e v e n t t h e p h l e b i t i c s w e l l i n g and p a i n . S i n c e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r employment, she h a s had s e v e r a l e p i s o d e s of p h l e b i t i s a f t e r s i t t i n g and sewing and s u b s e q u e n t l y must now r e f r a i n from s i t t i n g f o r any extended p e r i o d of time. On a t l e a s t t h r e e o c c a s i o n s she h a s had blood clots d e v e l o p i n h e r l e g s . When a c l o t d i s l o d g e d and t r a v e l e d to h e r l u n g s d u r i n g one of t h e s e e p i s o d e s , c l a i m a n t was h o s p i t a l i z e d f o r s e v e r e c h e s t p a i n . T h i s a t t a c k stemmed from t h e a c t i v i t y s h e engaged i n d u r i n g a move from one house t o a n o t h e r . A second f l a r e - u p af t e r t h e move r e s u l t e d i n o r d e r e d bed rest. Both phy- s i c i a n s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by a p a t i e n t w i t h such a m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n v a r i e s c o n s i d e r a b l y from i n d i v i d u a l t o i n d i v i - d u a l . Permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 39-71-116 ( 1 3 ) , MCA, as f o l l o w s : " 'Permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y ' means a con- d i t i o n r e s u l t i n g from i n j u r y as d e f i n e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t r e s u l t s i n t h e l o s s of a c t u a l e a r n i n g s or e a r n i n g c a p a b i l i t y t h a t e x i s t s a f t e r t h e i n j u r e d worker is a s f a r r e s t o r e d as t h e permanent c h a r a c t e r of t h e i n i u r i e s w i l l permit and which r e s u l t s i n t h e wo;ker having no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t o f f i n d - i ng r e g u 1 a r - . ei@ l o - - - a n i k x d - i n t L e normal l a b o r market . ~ i s a b i l i t v shall b e - su? -- - - - -- - - -- p o r t e d by a preponderance- of medical e v i d e n c e . " (Emphasis added. ) I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s s e c t i o n , t h i s Court h a s s t a t e d : "We hold t h a t t h i s evidence is s u f f i c i e n t t o 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 c l a i m a n t is per- manently and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he can and h a s done v a r i o u s odd jobs. A s w e have s a i d b e f o r e : " I . . . a man w i t h a s t i f f e n e d arm or damaged back or b a d l y weakened e y e w i l l presumably have a h a r d e r t i m e doing h i s work w e l l and meeting t h e c o m p e t i t i o n of young and h e a l t h y men. When a man s t a n d s b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation Court w i t h proven permanent phy- s i c a l i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy c l a u s e h a s a b o l i s h e d a l l p o s s i b i l i t y of common-law damages, it is not j u s t i f i a b l e to t e l l him he h a s undergone no impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of c u r r e n t pay c h e c k s . ' Fermo v. S u p e r l i n e P r o d u c t s ( 1 9 7 8 ) Mont. 574 P.2d 251, 253, 35 S t . Rep. 22. "Because c l a i m a n t can perform a few odd jobs f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e does not p r e c l u d e a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t is t o t a l l y and per- m a n e n t l y d i s a b l e d . T h i s is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e where, as h e r e , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t must work w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e o f pain." J e n s e n v. Zook Bros. C o n s t r u c t i o n CO. ( 1 9 7 8 ) r 178 Mont. 59, 62-63, 582 P.2d 1191, 1193. Here, c l a i m a n t h a s been i n s t r u c t e d to n o t work as a b a r t e n d e r or i n any o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e s t a n d i n g o r walking. She c a n n o t sit f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e w i t h o u t developing s w e l l i n g or p a i n i n h e r l e g s . She must e l e v a t e h e r f e e t s e v e r a l times a day t o p r e v e n t a f l a r e - u p of h e r symptoms. Employer's p h y s i c i a n h a s a d v i s e d a g a i n s t any o c c u p a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e s t a n d i n g o r s i t t i n g f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . H e recommended sales c l e r k work o n l y i f c l a i m a n t could move around -- n o t i f she h a s t o " s t a n d around and t a l k to people . " Claimant was t h i r t y - s e v e n y e a r s of age on t h e d a t e of h e r t e r m i n a t i o n . She married t w o months af ter f i n i s h i n g h i g h s c h o o l and had f i v e c h i l d r e n . The o n l y employment e x p e r i e n c e c l a i m a n t had p r i o r to h e r employment a t t h e Hideaway was n i n e months of work a s a c l e r k a t a Circle K s t o r e i n 1973, and a p p r o x i m a t e l y a y e a r and a h a l f of work a s a c a s h i e r and h o t e l c l e r k from f a l l 1974 t o s p r i n g 1976. She was e a r n i n g $2.25 p e r hour f o r c l e a n i n g and $4.25 p e r hour f o r b a r t e n d i n g a t t h e d a t e of h e r t e r m i n a t i o n . Claimant h a s no r e a s o n a b l e p r o s p e c t of employment. H e r capa- b i l i t i e s have been s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t e d . S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e h o l d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . Employer's f i n a l argument is t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is n o t a n i n j u r y w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119(1), MCA. She a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e of a t a n g i b l e , p e r c e p t i b l e hap- p e n i n g of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e and t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s would t h e r e f o r e be an o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e i f it a r o s e i n t h e c o u r s e and scope of h e r employment. W e reject t h i s argument. S e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA, d e f i n e s i n j u r y as: " ( 1 ) A t a n g i b l e happening o f a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from an unexpected cause or unusual s t r a i n r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r e x t e r n a l or i n t e r - n a l p h y s i c a l harm and such p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n as a r e s u l t t h e r e f r o m and e x c l u d i n g d i s e a s e n o t t r a c e a b l e to i n j u r y , e x c e p t as provided i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) of t h i s s e c t i o n . " Two e l e m e n t s must be demonstrated: (1) a t a n g i b l e happening o f a t a n g i b l e n a t u r e ; and, ( 2 ) t h a t t h i s is t h e cause of p h y s i c a l harm. Moen v. Decker Coal Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. --- - , 604 P.2d 765, 767, 36 St.Rep. 2220, 2222. Employer c o n t e n d s t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s g r a d u a l l y developed and p r o g r e s s e d o v e r f o u r months. That is n o t t h e case. The Workers' Compensation Court concluded t h a t " t h e week b e g i n n i n g on December 28 1977, w a s a t a n g i b l e happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from an unusual s t r a i n . " The c o u r t based t h i s c o n c l u s i o n upon t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e e x c e s s i v e h o u r s c l a i m a n t worked d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d and it r e l i e d upon o u r h o l d i n g i n Hoehne v. G r a n i t e Lumber C o . ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -- Mont . - , 615 P.2d 863, 865, 37 St.Rep. 1307, 1309-1310. I n - - - Hoehne, we recognized t h a t a t a n g i b l e happening need n o t be a s i n g l e i s o l a t e d i n c i d e n t , b u t may v e r y w e l l be a c h a i n of i n c i d e n t s l e a d i n g t o i n j u r y . There t h e c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d from a b i l a t e r a l carpel t u n n e l syndrome brought on by a c h a i n of i n c i d e n t s as c l a i m a n t s t a c k e d t w o by f o u r s a t a lumber yard e v e r y day. W e found t h a t t h e unu- s u a l s t r a i n i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s unexpected i n j u r y w a s caused by a t a n g i b l e happening. See also, Love v. Ralph's Food S t o r e (1973) 1 6 3 Mont. 234, 241-242, 516 P.2d 598, 602-603; Robins v Ogle ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 328, 333, 485 P.2d 692, 694-695; J o n e s v. B a i r ' s Cafes ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. 1 3 , 1 9 , 445 P.2d 923, 926. C l a i m a n t ' s e x c e s s i v e work schedule d u r i n g t h e week beginning December 28, 1977, is s i m i l a r l y a t a n g i b l e happening t h a t r e s u l t e d i n a n unusual s t r a i n . S u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s developed d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d r a t h e r t h a n o v e r f o u r months. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she f i r s t n o t i c e d t h e p a i n and s w e l l i n g on J a n u a r y 2 , 1978. D r . Romito t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s af f e c t i n g t h e superf i c i a l v e i n s s y s t e m can r e s u l t i n a narrowing of t h e system t h a t would cause symptoms and l e a d i t s e l f toward clots w i t h i n a matter of days. F i n a l l y , c l a i m a n t ' s u n r e b u t t e d t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t s h e had no p r i o r h i s t o r y of p h l e b i t i s and D r s . Romito and B e s t t e s t i f i e d t h a t p h l e b i t i s is n o t an expected r e s u l t of work as a b a r t e n d e r . I n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s p h l e b i t i s is an occupa- t i o n a l d i s e a s e r a t h e r t h a n an i n j u r y , employer must d e m o n s t r a t e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between i n j u r y and o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e . The t w o c r u c i a l p o i n t s of d i s t i n c t i o n a r e t i m e d e f i n i t e n e s s and unex- p e c t e d n e s s . L a r s o n ' s Workmen's Compensation Law, S e c t i o n 41.31 p. 7-357-359. Employer h a s f a i l e d to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e phle- b i t i s developed o v e r t i m e or t h a t it was e x p e c t e d . The r e c o r d s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation Court t h a t c l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( I ) , MCA. Af f irmed . 4 , d 6 ( t C a / , d & , C h i e f J-ustice Ye concur: