Title: LEWIS v ANACONDA COMPANY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12296
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1972

No. 12296 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STP-TE O F M O N T A N A 1972 REX LEWIS, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - T H E ANACONDA COllPANY et a 1 . , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jack M. Scanlon argued, Anaconda, Montana, For Respondent: Henningsen and Purcell-, Butte, Montana, Rex F. Henningsen argued, Butte, Montana. Submitted: October 18, 1972 Decided 8flV 2 4 1972 a ~ 9 F i l e d : q f p ~ t .. M r . Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment entered i n the d i s t r i c t court of Deer Lodge County on April 22, 1972, following a ruling that the second amended complaint failed t o state a cause of action; and the motion to dis- miss i t , was granted without leave to amend. I t appears that on December 7 , 1960, plaintiff Lewis, an employee of the Anaconda Company, suffered an industrial accident resulting i n a fractured l e f t wrist and fracture of both nasal bones. Lewis filed his claim for compensation and received compensation payments of $229.44. On or about March 1, 1961, Lewis asserts he had a discussion w i t h one John Emory, the claims manager of the Anaconda Company, and was advised that upon his return t o work his benefits under the workmen's compensation act terminated and he should not see an attorney as there would be no need to. Thereafter, it i s alleged, John Emory drafted a petition for a lump s u m settlement for $1,825, forged Lewis' name thereon, submitted the same to the Industrial Accident Board and i t was approved on March 27, 1961 . On April 3, 1961, John Emory requested a check from the Butte claims office for the $1,825 and i t was issued and Emory delivered to the claims office a release w i t h the forged signature of Lewis. Then, allegedly, Emory forged the name of Lewis to the check and negotiated it. Some years later, i n 1971, Lewis had another industrial accident and he was represented a t that time by Jack M. Scanlon, Esq., as his attorney. In reviewing the claim f i l e this attorney discovered these facts and notified Lewis i n March of 1971. Thereafter this action was commenced seeking to recover damages for fraudulent conversion by means of the forgery of his check for $1,825, praying for special damages of $9,028, $30,000 general damages for mental pain and anguish, with a second cause of action seeking exemplary damages in the amount of $400,000. The gravamen of plaintiff's contended cause of action i s that by reason of his injuries he was entitled to the lump sum settlement and was de- prived of i t by the fraudulent actions of the agent of the defendant Anaconda Company. However, he did not have anything to do w i t h the proceedings involving the petition for the lump s u m settlement, its approval and pay- ment of the amount approved. The d i s t r i c t judge i n his decision of April 18, 1972, on the motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint, stated : "No where, either i n the second amended complaint or the deposition of the plaintiff, does it appear that he suffered the loss he complains of. H e held good jobs during the 10 year interval; was even examined by the Anaconda Company Medical Staff and placed back to work on one occasion. N o complaint was made by him i n a l l of the 10 years. In his deposition he says he breaths w i t h difficulty through one side of his nose, but a t no time has he sought medical care for i t or any condition about which he complains i n this action. "Moreover, he has had no medical opinion to the effect that he has a 25 per cent permanent disability as a result of the industrial accident occuring December 27, 1960. " I t seems to us that i f he had a 25 per cent perma- nent disability, i t would have shown up i n a ten year period and that he would have sought competent medical help a t some time during that period. "No medical opinion presently exists to the effect that plaintiff ever suffered a 25 per cent permanent or partial disability. "Finally, there is no clear allegation that the plain- t i f f ever suffered or now suffers a 25 per cent perma- nent, partial disability in the complaint as a result of the injury he received December 27, 1960. * * *" There must be a determination by the Industrial Accident Board as to whether or not Lewis was entitled to any further compensation or to a lump s u m settlement for his injuries, (Section 92-821, R.C.M. 1947.) Plaintiff wants to rely upon the alleged forged documents as establishing his rights under the workmen's compensation act, but i n this position he i s clearly i n error. Before any form of re1 ief can be considered i t i s incumbent upon him to satisfy the Industrial Accident Board that he was entitled to such further compensation. W e held i n Profitt v. J. G . Watts Const. Co., 140 Mont. 265, 370 P.2d 878, that our courts do not have jurisdiction to make such a determination i n the f i r s t instance, there must be a previous hearing and finding by the Industrial Accident Board. Nothing herein con- tained shall bar subsequent action before the Industrial Accident Board. The decision of the d i s t r i c t court of April 18, 1972, was correct and the judgment entered thereon W e concur: (