Court Opinion

ID: 9663409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:38:06.666845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.520341
License: Public Domain

*583MESCHKE, Justice,
dissenting.
In Weber v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 377 N.W.2d 571 (N.D.1985), we observed that while it is within the province of the Bureau to initially weigh and evaluate the evidence, it may not do so in an unreasoned manner. In Weber, we found it necessary to reverse and remand for consideration of evidence before it because it had failed to do so. We should again do so.
To qualify for workmen’s compensation benefits, James Grace had to show (1) that his heart attack was causally related to his employment with reasonable medical certainty and (2) that it was “precipitated by unusual stress.” N.D.C.C., § 65-01-02(7).
On the first statutory requirement, the Bureau declared that “there is no medical substantiation that the claimant’s heart attack was in any way related to his employment with reasonable medical certainty. ” But, James’ doctor stated that he believed the heart attack “was caused, within reasonable medical certainty, by conditions under which he was working on the day of the event.” The doctor observed:
“In the first place, temperature conditions were extremely high. This causes a dilitation of his blood vessels in the skin which can reduce blood pressure. Excessive sweating depletes salt, potassium, and water from the circulation decreasing blood volume and sometimes disturbing electrolyte balance. He was also under extreme emotional stress due to pressures to complete a segment of construction so that other construction personnel could get underway. This stress often releases adrenalin which drives the heart and makes the heart increasingly irritable. All of these factors together would certainly lay the ground work for heart injury.”
There was no contrary medical evidence.
On review, the district court concluded that there was “no doubt that [James’] heart attack was indeed causally related to his employment, with reasonable medical certainty.” This determination has not been seriously contested on this appeal.
On the second requirement, the Bureau declared, also sweepingly, that “there is no evidence of unusual stress or strain.” But, there is obvious evidence of unusual stress on this job.
While the official temperature on August 4, 1982, rose to 93 degrees, James testified that it was about 120 degrees within the structure where he was working. James’ employer agreed that it was extremely hot there and that conditions existed which “would certainly be unusual” for bricklayers’ work. While the opinion by the Chief Justice minimizes heat as a factor, noting James’ concession that he had once worked in temperatures exceeding 150 degrees, it still cannot be said that the temperature extreme in this case was a “normal” working condition. Indeed, in the instance that James had worked in 150 degree temperatures, he was able to take breaks every four or five minutes.
. On this job, taking breaks was not a luxury James was allowed. Masonry jobs had been difficult to find, he had been unemployed for a long period before taking this job, and he was working as a foreman for only the second time in five years. Thus, he felt compelled to make sure that everything went smoothly. He was already a half-day behind schedule and was concerned that further delay would substantially increase his employer’s expenses because a crew of men and a rented crane would remain idle until he finished the job.
Additional stress was created when the crane was positioned over the bricklayers’ heads for use in the next phase of construction. The unsteady crane, swinging overhead, created a nerve-racking and potentially dangerous situation, forcing the bricklayers to suspend work to get out of the way several times.
Thus, there was clearly evidence of unusual stress, both physical and emotional. But the Bureau ignored it. Thus, we cannot fairly conclude that “a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined” that there was “no evidence of unusual stress *584or strain,” consistent with that formulation of our standard of review in Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D.1979).
While there may be other evidence, as identified in the opinion of the Chief Justice, indicating that James was performing “normal duties” of his job, that evidence was neither identified nor weighed in the findings of the Bureau. Thus, it is obvious that the Bureau did not perform its duty of weighing the evidence on the requirement of unusual stress. On review, it is not our function to search the record for evidence to weigh. Nor, should we guess at what the Bureau might have determined if it had properly performed its duty to consider the evidence and to “make and state concisely and explicitly its findings of fact.” N.D. C.C., § 28-32-13.
Nothing said or determined in Nelson v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 316 N.W.2d 790 (N.D.1982) and Ganske v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 355 N.W.2d 800 (N.D.1984) compels a decision in favor of the Bureau in this case. In those cases, we noted the difficulty that courts have had in determining “unusual stress,” particularly as applied to unusual emotional stress. In this case, evidence of the unusual stress resulting from a combination of physical and emotional factors must be considered. See, e.g., Nelson, supra, 316 N.W.2d at 795-96, citing with approval City and Cty. of Denver v. Indus. Commission, 195 Colo. 431, 579 P.2d 80 (1978), which held that evidence of physical strain accompanied by emotional or mental tension was sufficient to support an award for a heart attack under the Colorado Workmen’s Compensation Act.
The Bureau has not shown proper concern for the fair and just determination of James’ claim. Steele v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 273 N.W.2d 692, 702 (N.D.1978). It failed to consider evidence before it. Weber, supra, 377 N.W.2d at 574.
The evidence in this case does not support the Bureau’s finding that there is “no evidence of unusual stress.” Thus, its conclusions denying benefits are not properly supported by findings. Accordingly, we should reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with the evidence in this record.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
LEVINE, J., concurs.