Opinion ID: 2261317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Madore's Petition for Award of Compensation

Text: On August 29, 1977, Madore, while working as a roofer for Bangor Roof & Sheet Metal Company (hereafter Bangor Roof), fell approximately fifteen feet through roof decking onto a cement floor. Madore and Bangor Roof signed an agreement for payment of compensation for total incapacity on September 23, 1977. [2] On August 17, 1978, Bangor Roof filed a Petition for Review of Incapacity. On January 30, 1979, Madore filed a Petition for Award of Compensation. [3] On the day of the accident, Madore was examined by Dr. James Izzard, at which time he complained only of neck and shoulder pain. Dr. Izzard testified that on September 2, 1977, he again saw Madore, at which time Madore complained of heel pain. Dr. Izzard noted that while the heel was tender, it was not swollen. Dr. Izzard testified that he saw Madore three more times in September; Madore next mentioned a heel problem on the third visit (September 28). An x-ray revealed a fracture of the proximal fifth metatarsal of uncertain age, and the radiologist's report stated that mild swelling was present, indicating that the fracture may have been subacute. Dr. Izzard, though not a radiologist, testified that subacute would mean that the fracture was at least two weeks old, and might be of long-standing duration without union. He also testified that usually a fracture is accompanied by initial swelling. When asked if in his opinion the accident caused the fracture, Dr. Izzard noted that Madore was not bedridden after the accident, and stated: So my opinion would be it would be certainly possible if that's an opinion. I don't know if you can say he probably did it in the accident or not. Dr. John McGinn examined Madore on November 30, 1977, June 7, 1978, and September 21, 1978. Dr. McGinn had no record of any complaint as to the left foot. Dr. Rowland Pritchard saw Madore four times in 1977, and nearly every month in 1978. On January 24, 1979, Madore first voiced his complaints of pain in his left foot. Madore first testified on October 3, 1978. When asked what part of his body was injured, he indicated the left shoulder and neck area, and the left arm and hand. Madore testified again on July 18, 1979. He stated that on the day of the accident he complained of foot pain, and that Dr. Izzard checked his feet. He said that on all three visits to Dr. McGinn he complained of foot pain, and that on his first visit to Dr. Pritchard, he complained of foot pain. Madore further testified that throughout the period following the accident his foot problem had hindered his walking. Moreover, he stated that while he was testifying in October of 1978, his foot had felt like it was on fire, but he did not then mention it. The Commissioner found that the injury allegedly sustained by Joseph Madore to his left foot was not causally related to his work incident of August 29, 1977. Madore did not ask the Commissioner to make specific factual findings and conclusions of law pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 99. Therefore, we must treat the Commissioner as having made whatever factual determinations could, in accordance with correct legal concepts, support his ultimate decision, and sustain such determinations unless they are clearly erroneous. Chase v. White Elephant Restaurant, Me., 418 A.2d 175, 175-76 (1980). The issue of causal connection is itself one of fact. Sadler v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., Me., 382 A.2d 1043, 1044 (1978). On his Petition for Award of Compensation, Madore had the burden of proof on this issue. MacLeod v. Great Northern Paper Co., Me., 268 A.2d 488, 489 (1970); see note 3, supra. The Commissioner could rationally have disbelieved Madore's testimony: the testimony of all three doctors as to if and when Madore complained of foot pain was in conflict with Madore's statements. The Commissioner could rationally have found improbable Madore's testimony that when he first testified his foot felt as if it were on fire, in light of Madore's failure at that time to indicate that he had any foot complaints. See MacKenzie v. H. Tabenken & Company, Inc., Me., 382 A.2d 1047, 1050-51 (1978); see also Qualey v. Fulton, Me., 422 A.2d 773, 776 (1980). Since resolving the question of Madore's credibility against Madore finds rational support in the record and favors the Commissioner's decision, we must so resolve it. Gordon v. Colonial Distributors, Me., 425 A.2d 625, 628 (1981); Chase, 418 A.2d at 175-76. It is undisputed that Madore did have a fractured foot on September 28, 1977. The Commissioner could rationally have found that the fracture occurred after the accident. Dr. Izzard testified that swelling usually accompanies a fracture, yet no swelling was noted by him on September 2, 1977. He refused to testify, even when invited to do so, that it was more probable than not that the accident caused the fracture. Again, the Commissioner could rationally have found that the fracture occurred before the accident. Dr. Izzard testified that it might be of long-standing duration. By disbelieving Madore, and accepting the testimony of the doctors, the Commissioner could find that aside from tenderness and mild swelling in September, 1977, perhaps caused by the fall, Madore complained to no one of foot pain until January, 1979. At that time, he complained of pain to Dr. Pritchard, who simply took an x-ray which substantiated the existence of the fracture but revealed no other symptoms or injury. The Commissioner could thus disbelieve Madore and find that any exacerbation of the fracture caused by the accident disappeared after September of 1977, and that the fracture itself, the injury allegedly sustained by ... Madore to his left foot, occurred before the accident. While it might be that we would also affirm a finding that Madore's left foot injury was causally related to his accident, we cannot overturn the Commissioner's fact-finding simply because an alternative finding also finds support in the evidence. See Harmon v. Emerson, Me., 425 A.2d 978, 982 (1981). The Commissioner's finding of no causal relationship is not clearly erroneous.