Title: RIDENOUR v EQUITY SUPPLY CO
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-320
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1983

NO. 82-320 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 DAREL R. RIDENOUR, Claimant and Respondent, EQUITY SUPPLY COMPANY, and GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Tim Reardon, Judge presidina, Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: James E. Vidal, Kalispell, Montana - Decided. June 30, 1983 wed. JUN 3 0 1983 . .. . - --- Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . I n t h i s c a s e we a r e asked t o review an o r d e r g r a n t i n g workers' compensation b e n e f i t s to respondent, Dare1 R. Ridenour. A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h a t b e n e f i t s should have been awarded under t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t r a t h e r t h a n t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . W e f i n d t h a t b e n e f i t s were p r o p e r l y awarded, t h e r e f o r e we a f f i r m . Claimant had worked f o r Equity Supply Company f o r about twelve y e a r s . He worked p r i m a r i l y w i t h i n t h e f e r t i l i z e r depart- ment, b u t he a l s o worked a s a handyman. Claimant had smoked c i g a r e t t e s s i n c e 1944. Smoking, combined w i t h twelve y e a r s of work i n a d u s t y environment had r e s u l t e d i n Chronic O b s t r u c t i v e Pulmonary Disease (COPD) . COPD is a medical term d e s c r i b i n g a spectrum of lung d i s e a s e s , i n c l u d i n g asthma, b r o n c h i t i s , and emphysema. With t h e COPD, c l a i m a n t was a b l e t o perform h i s j o b , a l t h o u g h a t times he experienced s h o r t n e s s of b r e a t h . P r i o r t o t h e i n j u r y d a t e , c l a i m a n t had v i s i t e d a f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n . Claimant complained of t i r e d n e s s and s h o r t n e s s of b r e a t h . The d o c t o r noted t h a t h i s b r e a t h sounds were q u i t e d i s t a n t , which c o u l d be a r e s u l t of COPD which can be secondary t o a smoking h i s t o r y . On December 1 8 , 1978, c l a i m a n t was asked t o r e p a i r a mecha- nism on t o p of a g r a i n b i n . Upon r e c e i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s , he ascended on a m a n - l i f t i n t h e g r a i n e l e v a t o r s e c t i o n . H e l e f t t h e m a n - l i f t and proceeded through a s m a l l shed and on t o an e i g h t y - f o o t catwalk. When he reached t h e r e p a i r s i t e he decided h e needed a d d i t i o n a l t o o l s . H e went back a c r o s s t h e catwalk i n o r d e r t o t a k e t h e m a n - l i f t t o t h e ground l e v e l . He e n t e r e d t h e shed and was overcome by a high c o n c e n t r a t i o n of g r a i n d u s t pro- duced by an unloading o p e r a t i o n which was t a k i n g p l a c e below. H e c o u l d h a r d l y s e e b u t he made h i s way t o t h e m a n - l i f t and descended t o t h e main f l o o r . A s he proceeded down, he experienced extreme b r e a t h i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . The c l a i m a n t was immediately taken t o a p h y s i c i a n . The t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n p r e s c r i b e d e p i n e p h r i n e t o r e l i e v e b r o n c h i a l spasm, and diagnosed Ridenour 's c o n d i t i o n as a c u t e a s t h m a t i c b r o n c h i t i s . A f t e r t h i s i n c i d e n t , c l a i m a n t could not perform h i s u s u a l job. H e attempted t o perform l e s s demanding c h o r e s , y e t was u n s u c c e s s f u l . H e f i n a l l y ceased employment on May 2 0 , 1 9 7 9 . The medical evidence c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y of testimony from t h r e e p h y s i c i a n s ; D r . Maloney, a f a m i l y p r a c t i t i o n e r , and two pulmonary s p e c i a l i s t s , Dr. Power and Dr. Schimke. Dr. Maloney had seen respondent p r i o r t o and immediately a f t e r t h e i n c i d e n t on December 18. Dr. Maloney t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s i n g l e g r a i n d u s t i n h a l a t i o n of December 1 8 would not have caused r e s p o n d e n t ' s COPD. I n o t h e r words, t h e r e was c l e a r l y a p r e - e x i s t i n g con- d i t i o n . Dr. Maloney i n d i c a t e d t h a t even i f t h e i n h a l a t i o n i n c i - d e n t had n o t o c c u r r e d , it was probable t h a t respondent, i f he c o n t i n u e d t o smoke and work i n t h e same environment, would even- t u a l l y become d i s a b l e d a s a r e s u l t of h i s COPD. However, t h e time frame could n o t be p r e d i c t e d , he may have made it t o r e t i r e - ment age. D r . Schimke t e s t i f i e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s c h e s t x-rays i n d i - c a t e d t h e development of emphysema f o r a t l e a s t t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s p r i o r t o examination and t h a t t h e r e was no new d i s e a s e t r a c e a b l e t o t h e i n c i d e n t on December 18. H e d e s c r i b e d t h e inha- l a t i o n a s a " s e v e r e b u t temporary i l l n e s s and d i s a b i l i t y " however, t h e one e p i s o d e "may have r e s u l t e d i n more asthma and more b o n c h i t i s , which could f l a r e up more r e a d i l y i n t h e ensuing months and y e a r s . " Dr. Power agreed t h a t t h e r e was a pre- e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n t h a t could not have been caused by t h e s i n g l e i n h a l a t i o n of g r a i n d u s t . He d e s c r i b e d t h e i n c i d e n t a s a t r i g g e r i n g mechanism. According t o D r . Power, people w i t h t h i s kind of c o n d i t i o n e x p e r i e n c e r e d u c t i o n i n lung f u n c t i o n over a p e r i o d of time without being keenly aware t h a t they have a major problem o t h e r t h a n s h o r t n e s s of b r e a t h . Then an i n c i d e n t o c c u r s "which is r e a l l y t h e l a s t s t r a w t h a t kind of breaks t h e c a m e l ' s back" t h a t c a u s e s d i s a b i l i t y . R i d e n o u r ' s c l a i m f o r b e n e f i t s was t r e a t e d a s a c l a i m under t h e Occupational Disease A c t . The D i v i s i o n of Workers' Compensation computed R i d e n o u r ' s b e n e f i t s t o be $3.93 p e r week. On May 26, 1981, Ridenour r e f i l e d h i s c l a i m t o i n d i c a t e h i s d e s i r e t o seek b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t f o r t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y due t o an a c c i d e n t . A hearing was h e l d i n t h e Workers' Compensation Court on J u l y 1 6 , 1981, Judge Hunt pre- s i d i n g . P r i o r t o d e c i s i o n , Judge Hunt l e f t t h e bench. The newly-appointed judge, Timothy Reardon, d i s q u a l i f i e d h i m s e l f . J u r i s d i c t i o n was assumed by D i s t r i c t Judge Gordon B e n n e t t who a p p o i n t e d Roger Tippy a s a h e a r i n g s examiner. Mr. Tippy reviewed t h e record and e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment; r u l i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t was e n t i t l e d t o permanent t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t a t t h e r a t e of $145.33 p e r week. T h e r e a f t e r , Judge B e n n e t t adopted i n f u l l , and w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e h e a r i n g s examiner. The i n s u r e r and employer t h e n brought t h i s appeal. W e a r e asked t o a d d r e s s two i s s u e s ; f i r s t , whether it was e r r o r t o a l l o w e l e c t i o n by t h e c l a i m a n t between t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t and t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , and second, whether it was e r r o r t o conclude t h a t c l a i m a n t suf- f e r e d an i n j u r y a s d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 39-71-119, MCA. W e a d d r e s s t h e s e i s s u e s i n t u r n . The f o c u s of a p p e l l a n t s ' argument i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e is t h a t c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d from a n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e , t h e r e f o r e , h i s e x c l u s i v e remedy o c c u r s under t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t . A p p e l l a n t s c i t e t h e d e f i n i t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e found i n s e c t i o n 39-72-102(11), MCA, " 'Occupational d i s e a s e ' means a l l d i s e a s e s a r i s i n g o u t of o r c o n t r a c t e d from and i n t h e course of employment." A p p e l l a n t s a l s o c i t e t h e s t a t u t o r y c a u s a t i o n s e c t i o n which r e f i n e s " a r i s i n g o u t of . employment; " s e c t i o n 39-72-408, MCA: "Proximate c a u s a t i o n . Occupational d i s e a s e s s h a l l be deemed t o a r i s e o u t of t h e employment o n l y i f : " ( 1 ) t h e r e is a d i r e c t c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n be- tween t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which t h e work is performed and t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e ; " ( 2 ) t h e d i s e a s e can be s e e n t o have followed as a n a t u r a l i n c i d e n t of t h e work a s a r e s u l t of t h e exposure occasioned by t h e n a t u r e of t h e employment; " ( 3 ) t h e d i s e a s e can be f a i r l y t r a c e d t o t h e employment a s t h e proximate cause; " ( 4 ) t h e d i s e a s e does not come from a hazard t o which workmen would have been e q u a l l y exposed o u t s i d e of t h e employment; " ( 5 ) t h e d i s e a s e is i n c i d e n t a l t o t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e b u s i n e s s and not independent of t h e r e l a t i o n of employer and employee." A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n f i t s t h e above s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n s , t h e r e f o r e c l a i m a n t ' s remedy can o n l y be w i t h t h e Occupational Disease A c t , a s s p e c i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 39-72-305, MCA, "The r i g h t t o recover compensation p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e s . . . is t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy t h e r e f o r a g a i n s t an employer . . ." W e d i s a g r e e . W e hold t h a t a l t h o u g h c l a i m a n t may have had a compensable d i s e a s e under t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t , t h a t s t a t u s d i d n o t p r e c l u d e e l i g i b i l i t y under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . I n o t h e r words, a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m a n t could meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of both a c t s , t h u s he would be allowed t o choose h i s remedy. To a l l o w an e l e c t i o n between t h e two a c t s d o e s n o t v i o l a t e t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy language of s e c t i o n 39-72-305, MCA. The l e g i s l a t u r e o n l y intended t h a t an employee n o t have a common law a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s employer. A p p e l l a n t s c i t e t h r e e c a s e s i n s u p p o r t of t h e i r p o s i t i o n . The e a r l i e s t case is Summer v. V i c t o r Chemical Works ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 6 1 ) , 298 F.2d 66. I n Summer t h e employee i n s t i t u t e d an a c t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s i n s t a t e c o u r t which was l a t e r t r a n s f e r r e d t o f e d e r a l c o u r t . The F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Court dismissed t h e a c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h e employee's d i s a b i l i t y was t h e r e s u l t of an a c c i d e n t , t h u s h i s remedy was under t h e Montana Workers' Compensation A c t . Upon review, t h e n i n t h c i r c u i t c o u r t o f a p p e a l s h e l d t h a t an employee who a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t could m a i n t a i n an a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s employer who had n o t e l e c t e d t o be covered by t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t . The c o u r t r e l i e d upon a s e c t i o n of t h e a c t which s p e c i f i - c a l l y p r o h i b i t e d common law a c t i o n s a g a i n s t employers, e x c e p t i n t h o s e c a s e s where employees were not e l i g i b l e f o r b e n e f i t s under t h e A c t o r i n those c a s e s where employees r e j e c t e d coverage of t h e Act. T h i s s e c t i o n was repealed i n 1979. Summer d e a l t w i t h a d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t o r y scheme, and while t h e c a s e may be h e l p f u l , it is c e r t a i n l y not c o n t r o l l i n g . I n f a c t , t h e c a s e s t a n d s f o r l i b e r a l s e l e c t i o n of remedies; a philosophy not b e n e f i c i a l t o a p p e l l a n t s . Next, we a r e c i t e d t o Anaconda Co. v. D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 161 Mont. 318, 506, P.2d 8 1 , where t h e c l a i m a n t brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s employer f o r i n j u r i e s s u f f e r e d i n an underground mine. The D i s t r i c t Court allowed t h e a c t i o n t o proceed, c o n t r a r y t o t h e employer's a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e l a w s u i t was barred by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Workers ' Compensation Act and t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t . The employer t h e n p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . T h i s Court g r a n t e d t h e w r i t and d i r e c t e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o o r d e r summary judgment i n f a v o r of t h e employer. I t is c l e a r t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t brought h i s p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n a f t e r h i s c l a i m f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e b e n e f i t s had been r e j e c t e d . I n o r d e r i n g summary judgment f o r t h e employer, w e c i t e d s e c t i o n 92-1308, RCM, 1947, (now s e c t i o n 39-32-305, amended) which p r e c l u d e s a common law a c t i o n a g a i n s t a n employer, even where a c l a i m a n t has f a i l e d t o prove e n t i t l e - ment t o o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e b e n e f i t s . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t s c i t e Dayton v. Boeing Company ( D . Mont. 1 9 7 5 ) , 389 F.Supp. 433, where t h e c l a i m a n t sought damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d by exposure t o e l e c t r o m a g n e t i c p u l s e s and l a s e r r a d i a t i o n . The Montana Federal D i s t r i c t Court, r e l y i n g on t h i s C o u r t ' s holding i n Anaconda, r u l e d t h a t an employee who suf- f e r s a d i s e a s e t h a t is covered by t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t h a s no common law remedy a g a i n s t h i s employer. A p p e l l a n t s ' r e l i a n c e on t h e s e t h r e e c a s e s i s misplaced. I n a l l of t h e s e c a s e s , t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy q u e s t i o n is r a i s e d i n t h e c o n t e x t of a p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n . The q u e s t i o n i n t h e s e c a s e s was whether o r not a damage a c t i o n could be maintained i n view of t h e remedies provided through t h e Workers' Compensation and Occupational D i s e a s e A c t s . I n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s now, t h a t is not t h e q u e s t i o n . I t is obvious t o us t h a t t h e language of s e c t i o n 39-72-305, MCA, was o n l y meant t o p r o h i b i t p e r s o n a l i n j u r y a c t i o n s a g a i n s t employers. The l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t i n t e n d t o p r e v e n t a c h o i c e between s t a t u t o r y remedies. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is supported i n s e v e r a l s e c t i o n s of both a c t s . W e must read a l l of t h e s e sec- t i o n s t o g e t h e r t o d i s c e r n l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . A s we s a i d i n Home B u i l d i n g and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n of Helena v. F u l t o n ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 113, 115, 375 P.2d 312, 313, " s t a t u t e s must be read and c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y and t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t may n o t b e gained from t h e wording of any p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n o r s e n t e n c e , b u t o n l y from a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e whole." F i r s t , s e c t i o n 39-72-305, MCA, t h e v e r y s e c t i o n on which a p p e l l a n t s ' argument is based, d i s t i n g u i s h e s between t h e remedy provided i n t h e Occupational Disease Act and t h e remedy a f f o r d e d t h r o u g h a damage a c t i o n . S u b s e c t i o n (1) makes it c l e a r t h a t t h e r i g h t t o recover compensation a g a i n s t p r o p e r l y i n s u r e d employers is provided w i t h i n t h e A c t . S u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) t h e n a d o p t s provi- s i o n s of t h e Workers' Compensation A c t r e l a t i n g t o uninsured employers. One of t h o s e adopted p r o v i s i o n s d e a l s w i t h t h e r i g h t o f an employee t o e l e c t between h i s remedies, i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o b r i n g a damage a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s employer. S e c t i o n 39-71-508, MCA. Another s e c t i o n w i t h i n t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t s u p p o r t s o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . S e c t i o n 39-72-709, MCA, s t a t e s : " [c] ompen- s a t i o n payable p u r s u a n t t o t h e terms of t h i s c h a p t e r t o t h e c l a i m a n t , h i s b e n e f i c i a r i e s , o r dependents s h a l l be diminished by t h e amount of any compensation paid o r t o be paid him o r them under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t of Montana o r any o t h e r workers ' compensation a c t ." The l e g i s l a t u r e recognized t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n could be compensable under e i t h e r a c t , and i n such s i t u a t i o n s , double b e n e f i t s w i l l not be allowed. W e o f f e r one f u r t h e r example found i n t h e Workers' Compensa- t i o n A c t . S e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( 2 ) , MCA, d e f i n e s i n j u r y a s , " c a r d i o v a s c u l a r o r pulmonary o r r e s p i r a t o r y d i s e a s e s c o n t r a c t e d by a paid f i r e f i g h t e r . . . Nothing h e r e i n s h a l l c o n s t r u e d t o e x c l u d e a x o t h e r workinq person who s u f f e r s g c a r d i o v a s c u l a r , pulmonary, or r e s p i r a t o r y d i s e a s e w h i l e i d t & c o u r s e a n d scope i o f his employment." (emphasis added) The l e g i s l a t u r e , i n pro- v i d i n g t h a t c e r t a i n d i s e a s e s of paid f i r e f i g h t e r s be compensable under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , recognized t h a t non- f i r e f i g h t e r s w i t h c a r d i o v a s c u l a r , pulmonary o r r e s p i r a t o r y d i s e a s e s might w e l l be e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t r a t h e r t h a n t h e Occupational Disease A c t . I n o t h e r words, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e s e k i n d s of d i s e a s e s , while normally considered under t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t , could be compensable a s i n j u r i e s under t h e def i n i - t i o n of s u b s e c t i o n (1) of 39-71-119, MCA. T h i s is j u s t such a c a s e and w e now c o n s i d e r whether t h e c o u r t e r r e d by concluding t h a t c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d an i n j u r y . An i n j u r y is d e f i n e d 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 unexpected cause o r 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 o r 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 con- d i t i o n a s a r e s u l t therefrom 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 t o i n j u r y . . . - " S e c t i o n 39-71-119 ( l ) , MCA. (emphasis added ) A p p e l l a n t s v e r y c a p a b l y d i s c u s s c a s e law i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e e x c l u s i o n of d i s e a s e s not t r a c e a b l e t o i n j u r y . W e a r e asked t o pay p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n t o L a F o r e s t v. Safeway S t o r e s , I n c . ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 147 Mont. 431, 414 P.2d 200, which supposedly c o n t a i n s t h e g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s f o r r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s i s s u e . I n L a F o r e s t we r e v e r s e d an o r d e r awarding workers' compen- s a t i o n b e n e f i t s because t h e medical e v i d e n c e showed t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s b u r s i t i s e x i s t e d b e f o r e , and was not caused by t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t . A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t t h e same s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e f o r e t h e c l a i m a n t is not e n t i t l e d t o w o r k e r s ' compensation b e n e f i t s . Although t h e same f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n may e x i s t (Mr. Ridenour's COPD e x i s t e d long b e f o r e t h e d a t e of t h e a c c i d e n t , and no new d i s e a s e was caused by t h e massive i n h a l a t i o n ) it does not f o l l o w t h a t workers' compensation b e n e f i t s a r e precluded. I n L a F o r e s t we were not asked t o a d d r e s s t h e a g g r a v a t i o n o r a c c e l e r a t i o n f a c t o r , while i n t h i s c a s e it is t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e . For many y e a r s it h a s been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t t h e employer t a k e s h i s employee a s he f i n d s him, and a s we s a i d i n Gaffney v. Ind. Acc. Board ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 129 Mont. 394, 401, 287 P.2d 256, 259, " [ t j h e f a c t t h a t an employee was s u f f e r i n g from a pre- e x i s t i n g d i s e a s e o r d i s a b i l i t y does not p r e c l u d e compensation i f t h e d i s e a s e o r d i s a b i l i t y was aggravated o r a c c e l e r a t e d by an i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y which a r o s e o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of t h e employment . ' I Consequently, t h e q u e s t i o n h e r e is whether o r not Mr. R i d e n o u r ' s COPD was aggravated o r a c c e l e r a t e d by t h e inhala- t i o n i n c i d e n t on December 1 8 , 1978. A p p e l l a n t s d i s c u s s s e v e r a l c a s e s d e a l i n g w i t h a g g r a v a t i o n and a c c e l e r a t i o n of p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n s and c a u t i o n u s t o keep i n mind t h a t i n t h i s c a s e , we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h " a p r e - e x i s t i n g , d e f i n e d and c e r t i f i e d o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e . " I t appears we a r e b e i n g asked t o d i s t i n g u i s h between a p r e - e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n and a p r e - e x i s t i n g d i s e a s e . However, t h e r e is no such d i s t i n c t i o n i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e a g g r a v a t i o n and a c c e l e r a t i o n r u l e . An employer a c c e p t s h i s employee w i t h a l l of h i s i n j u r i e s and d i s e a s e s . W e have recognized t h a t d i s e a s e s a r e s u b j e c t t o aggra- v a t i o n o r a c c e l e r a t i o n . I n Wight v. Hughes Livestock Co., I n c . , (1981) I Mont. --- , 634 P.2d 1189, 38 St.Rep. 1632, we were asked t o review a f i n d i n g of t h e Compensation Court which implied t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s s p i n a l d i s e a s e was aggravated by an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . W e af f i r m e d , making no d i s t i n c t i o n between d i s e a s e s and i n j u r i e s . A p p e l l a n t s ' c a u t i o n , t h a t we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h " a pre- e x i s t i n g , d e f i n e d and c e r t i f i e d o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e ," s u r f a c e s a g a i n i n d i s c u s s i o n of Greger v. United P r e s t r e s s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 180 Mont. 348, 590 P.2d 1121. I n Greger t h e c e n t r a l i s s u e was t h e same a s i n t h i s c a s e ; whether c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n was com- p e n s a b l e under t h e Occupational D i s e a s e A c t o r t h e Workers' Compensation A c t . Mr. Greger had worked r e g u l a r l y w i t h c o n c r e t e . H e l e a r n e d t h a t he was a l l e r g i c t o chromium and n i c k e l which a r e a d d i t i v e s t o t h e cement mixture. H e developed c o n t a c t der- m a t i t i s . The t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n t e s t i f i e d t h a t c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d b o t h an i n j u r y and an o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e . However, t h e i n s u r e r had t r e a t e d t h e c l a i m a s one f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e and paid b e n e f i t s f o r o n l y t h a t p e r i o d of time i n which c l a i m a n t was t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d . The Workers' Compensation Court h e l d f o r t h e i n s u r e r and we a f f i r m e d . A p p e l l a n t s c o r r e c t l y argue t h a t our holding i n Greqer was based i n p a r t on t h e f a c t t h a t each s t a t u t o r y element of occupa- t i o n a l d i s e a s e was s a t i s f i e d . T h e r e f o r e , according t o a p p e l l a n t s , s i n c e Mr. R i d e n o u r ' s c o n d i t i o n met t h e same s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s , t h e same holding should apply. However, a p p e l l a n t s m i s i n t e r p r e t our reasoning. Our holding d i d n o t p r o h i b i t e l i g i - b i l i t y under t h e Workers' Compensation A c t simply because c l a i m a n t ' s c o n d i t i o n f i t t h e d e f i n i t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e . I n Greger t h e r e was not an i n j u r y . Claimant was exposed t o t h e cement a d d i t i v e s over a p e r i o d of time. There was never "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 ." W e h e l d t h a t a l l e r g i e s which a r e aggravated by work e x p e r i e n c e r e s u l t i n occu- p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e ; n o t i n g t h a t t h e "purpose of t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s e a s e a c t is t o compensate workers who c o n t r a c t a d i s e a s e o r have i n e r t d i s e a s e s when no ' a c c i d e n t ' is i n v o l v e d , o r a s i n Montana, where t h e r e is no ' i n j u r y ' . . ." G r e q e r , 180 Mont. a t 354, 590 P.2d a t 1124. W e have c a r e f u l l y reviewed t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e and conclude t h a t t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y r u l e d t h a t Mr. Ridenour s u f f e r e d a n i n j u r y . Our f u n c t i o n i n reviewing t h e s e d e c i s i o n s is o n l y t o d e t e r m i n e whether s u b s t a n t i a l evidence e x i s t s t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , and w e cannot impose our judgment a s t o t h e weight of t h e e v i d e n c e . V i e t s v. Sweet G r a s s County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 8 Mont. 337, 583 P.2d 1070. There is no doubt t h a t c l a i m a n t met h i s e v i d e n t i a r y h u r d l e . Af f irmed. W e concur: ~ d 9 0 . ~ 4 Chief J u s t i c e