Beatty v. Wellman Power Gas Inc.

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: July 8, 1975
• Docket: 12792
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12792

I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A H OR F F OTN

MARTIN BEATTY,

Claimant and Respondent,

W L M N P W R AND GAS, INC., and EL A O E T W I N CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert J. Boyd, ~ u d g e r e s i d i n g . p

Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

McKeon and Skakles, Anaconda, Montana Michael J. McKeon argued, Anaconda, Montana

For Respondent :

Scanlon, B r o l i n and Connors, Anaconda, Montana Jack M. Scanlon argued, Anaconda, Montana

Submitted: May 7, 1975

Decided :JU& a 1975 Filed: '* ;iJI,B 1% M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court . This i s a workmen's compensation c a s e a r i s i n g from an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t t h a t a l l e g e d l y occurred on November 13, 1972. Claimant Martin T. Beatty was employed a s a p i p e f i t t e r by Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . The Montana workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e D i v i s i o n ) h e l d t h a t claimant f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h , by a preponderance of t h e c r e d i b l e evidence, t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t had i n f a c t occurred and denied compen- sation. O appeal t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Deer Lodge County, n a d d i t i o n a l evidence was presented and t h a t c o u r t found an indus- t r i a l a c c i d e n t had occurred and remanded t h e m a t t e r t o t h e Division f o r e s t a b l i s h m e n t of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e medical payments and award due him. From t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . and i t s i n s u r e r , Twin C i t y F i r e Insurance Company, a p p e a l . P r i o r t o t h e p e r f e c t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l claimant d i e d from causes u n r e l a t e d t o t h e a c c i d e n t . Martin T. B e a t t y claimed he s u f f e r e d an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i - dent on November 13, 1972. Describing t h a t a c c i d e n t he t e s t i f i e d : It W were p u l l i n g a p i p e w i t h a come-along and i t pinned m a g a i n s t e e t h e wall." He claimed he r e p o r t e d t h e a c c i d e n t t o h i s employer on t h a t d a t e , November 13, 1972. The " ~ m p l o y e r ' s F i r s t Report of Occupational I n j u r y o r ise ease" f i l e d w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n on January

12, 1973, put t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c l a i m i n i s s u e by answering t h i s q u e s t i o n on t h e form: "Describe i n f u l l how a c c i d e n t happened and GIVE CAUSE-- T e l l what employee was doing when i n j u r e d : A,. 11W cannot d e s c r i b e a c c i d e n t because i t was n o t e r e p o r t e d t o t h i s o f f i c e , and we w i l l n o t acknowledge i t s happening on t h i s job. This r e p o r t made per Hartford request. It Claimant h e r e , a former p o l i c e o f f i c e r r e t i r e d on a t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y c l a i m from t h e p o l i c e pension fund, had f i l e d t h r e e p r i o r i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t claims and a t t h e time of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t h e r e had been t h e r e c i p i e n t of a s e t t l e m e n t r e p r e s e n t i n g 233 weeks o f compensation f o r a t o t a l of $10,500 r e c e i v e d on A p r i l 27, 1972. The r e c o r d i q d i c a t e s t h a t c l a i m a n t d i d n o t seek medical a t t e n t i o n u n t i l November 22, 1972, n i n e days a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y , when he was admitted t o t h e Anaconda Community H o s p i t a l under a d i a g n o s i s of "pneumonia", w i t h t h i s b r i e f h i s t o r y - - p a t i e n t admitted t o emergency room p e r wheel chair--complains of pain i n back--dyspnea--coughing--feet swollen--has been d r i n k i n g f o r two weeks. S e v e r a l i s s u e s a r e presented by b o t h p a r t i e s on appeal. W find this issue dispositive: e Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n r e v e r s i n g t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s f i n d i n g t h a t an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t had n o t occurred? W n o t e h e r e t h a t i n Montana i t i s c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s j u s t i f i e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Division o n l y when t h e r e e x i s t s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e e v i - dence a g a i n s t i t s f i n d i n g s . IcAndrews v. Schwartz, 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379, 3 1 St.Rep. 517; Jones v. air's Cafes, 152 Mont.13, 445 P.2d 923; S t o r d a h l v. Rush Implement Co., 148 Mont. 13, 417 P.2d 95. Consequently a d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e evidence b e f o r e t h e Division i s c r u c i a l f o r a proper d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s case. The p r i n c i p a l i s s u e b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n was whether claimant had, i n f a c t , s u f f e r e d an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t w i t h r e - s u l t a n t i n j u r y a s contemplated by s e c t i o n 92-418, R.C.M. 1947. To s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s c l a i m an a c c i d e n t had occurred claimant i n t r o - duced h i s own testimony and t h a t of Ed Darcy and Alvin Palmer. Ed Darcy, a co-worker w i t h claimant on t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t , explained t h e a c c i d e n t i n t h i s manner: "Yes, I r a i s e d a p i e c e of p i p e , i t seems t o m i t e was p r e t t y heavy, i t was p r e t t y long and we were r a i s i n g i t up and B e a t t y was h o l d i n g on t o i t and i t was swinging and i t i s vague, b u t I can remember 1I t h e pipe swinging and him backing up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . However, on cross-examination Darcy t e s t i f i e d : "MR. MCKEON: Ed, we had a telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n two days ago, d i d n ' t we? A. Right. "Q. And you t o l d m a t t h a t time your p a r t i c u l a r e v e r s i o n of t h e e v e n t , d i d n ' t you? A . I think I t o l d you t h a t I d i d n ' t remember t h e a c c i d e n t . "Q. You a l s o had a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e a d j u s t e r from t h e i n s u r a n c e company, d i d n ' t you, sometime a f t e r t h e d a t e of November 13, 1972? A. Right.

"Q. And a t t h a t time I b e l i e v e you t o l d t h e i n s u r a n c e representative-----

"Q. A t t h a t time d i d you t e l l him you d i d n ' t remember anything about t h i s a c c i d e n t ? A . I believe t h a t i s what I s a i d . "Q. You s a i d t h a t , d i d n ' t you? A. Yes. "Q. And a t t h a t time you s a i d t h a t you b e l i e v e d t h a t no a c c i d e n t i n f a c t happened, i s n ' t t h a t c o r r e c t ? A . Well, l e t m put i t t h i s way t h e a c c i d e n t , i t seemed s o o u t e of p r o p o r t i o n i t didn 1 t seem l i k e an a c c i d e n t , 1 d i d n ' t s a y anything. ?I S t i l l l a t e r d u r i n g cross-examination, t h i s information was elicited: "You r e c e i v e d a phone c a l l from M r . Beatty some couple of weeks a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t , d i d n ' t you? A . Right.

"Q. And a t t h a t time d i d n ' t you t e l l m t h a t you f e l t e t h a t M r . B e a t t y was t r y i n g t o c o e r c e you i n t o saying t h e r e was an a c c i d e n t ? A . No, I d i d n ' t say t h a t , I s a i d he was t r y i n g t o i n f l u e n c e me. "Q. I n t o saying t h a t t h e r e was i n f a c t an a c c i d e n t ? A. Yes. I t Claimant's second w i t n e s s was Alvin Palmer, foreman a t Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . He t e s t i f i e d he was n o t p r e s e n t when t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t occurred b u t he had asked claimant l a t e r t h a t II day i f he was s i c k o r something o r had a bad ha.ngover o r some- 11 11 thing. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d claimant appeared t o have a stomach- ache o r o u t of wind o r something l i k e t h a t . ' ' When claimant t e s t i f i e d on h i s own b e h a l f , he explained t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t t h i s way: "Well, i n p u l l i n g t h i s 14 i n c h c a s t i r o n over t h e t o p of t h e t a n k s and t h e o t h e r p i p e s why C h a r l i e Hubbard s a i d t h a t he d i d n ' t b e l i e v e t h a t we could hold i t back without coming over t h e o t h e r p i p e s and we had a plank from t h e t o p over t o t h e w a l l on a beam and I was s t a n d i n g o u t on t h i s plank and when t h e y r a i s e d i t up and t h e f i t t i n g s come i n I c o u l d n ' t hold i t back and i t backed m up a g a i n s t t h e w a l l . I' e Claimant a l s o t e s t i f i e d he was h o s p i t a l i z e d on November 22, 1972, some n i n e days a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t occurred. However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s c l a i m a n t ' s a f f l i c t i o n was diagnosed a s pneumonia a t t h e time of h i s h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . D r . Howard Mize, Don Hornbacher, J a c k Somers and Robert Wolf t e s t i f i e d f o r defendants. D r . Mize t e s t i f i e d he examined c l a i m a n t subsequent t o t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t when c l a i m a n t was complaining of low back p a i n , d i f f i c u l t y i n h i s g a i t and l a c k o f s e n s a t i o n i n h i s e x t r e m i t i e s ; t h a t claimant had q u i t e an e x t e n s i v e h i s t o r y i n regard t o h i s back r e l a t i n g back t o 1967, when he was examined and t r e a t e d by Doctors Sereen and Davidson. I n 1969, back d i f f i c u l t i e s a g a i n compelled c l a i m a n t t o s e e D r . Trobough who gave him a 40% d i s a b i l i t y r a t i n g . Again, i n 1971 and i n 1972, claimant was t r e a t e d by Drs. Simrns and Kanty i n r e g a r d t o h i s back. A l l of t h i s medical h i s t o r y was p r i o r t o November 13, 1972, t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t involved h e r e . I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s testimony D r . Mize wrote a l e t t e r t o d e f e n d a n t s ' a t t o r n e y which was r e c e i v e d i n t o evidence by t h e Division. That l e t t e r s t a t e d : "In a d d i t i o n , i n view of t h e n a t u r e of t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t M r . B e a t t y d e s c r i b e d t o m i t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t e t h i s t r i v i a l i n j u r y i n i t s e l f could have produced a l l of t h e pathology t h a t M r . B e a t t y claims. I' Power Jack Somers, a foreman a t Wellman/and Gas, I n c . a t t h e time of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was never n o t i f i e d about an a c c i d e n t . He t e s t i f i e d : "Q. Were any phone c a l l s e v e r made t o you a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t ? A . Yes. Q . Who c a l l e d You? A. M. B e a t t y c a l l e d m and r e one o f h i s l a w y e r ' s s e c r e t a r i e s c a l l e d me. Il Q. What d i d M r . Beatty s a y t o you? A . He wanted t o know i f I could h e l p him w i t h h i s a c c i d e n t . "Q. What d i d you say? A. I s a i d I knew n o t h i n g about i t because i t never was r e p o r t e d t o me. "Q. Did he t r y t o t a l k you i n t o saying t h e r e was an a c c i d e n t ? A. Yes. I I F i n a l l y , Robert Wolf, then g e n e r a l foreman of t h e p i p e not crew a t Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . , t e s t i f i e d he w a s / n o t i f i e d of an a c c i d e n t on November 1 3 , 1972. He f u r t h e r s t a t e d he had seen claimant a t t h e end of t h e work day on t h a t day and h i s c o n d i t i o n was " ~ u s tl i k e everybody e l s e h u r r y i n g t o g e t t o t h e parking l o t Jc Jc **"

A.fter a l l evidence was submitted, t h e Division e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t s and conclusions of law. It h e l d t h a t t h e claimant d i d n o t s u f f e r an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t . Compensation was denied. Claimant then appealed t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . That c o u r t heard testimony of claimant and h i s w i f e , who d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t h e Division hearing. Defendant Wellman Power and Gas, I n c . argues t h e w i f e ' s testimony was hearsay and t h a t defense c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d a t t h e hearing before t h e d i s t r i c t court. However, i t i s of i n t e r e s t t o n o t e t h a t t h e w i f e acknowledged, d u r i n g testimony, t h a t h e r husband's back problem predated t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Division. Reviewing a l l of t h e evidence, we b e l i e v e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e Division. The evidence does n o t c l e a r l y preponderate a g a i n s t t h o s e f i n d i n g s . The i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and vagueness of c l a i m a n t ' s w i t n e s s e s , combined

w i t h t h e a t t e m p t s t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r testimony and c l a i m a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o s e e a d o c t o r u n t i l n e a r l y n i n e days had e l a p s e d w i t h t h e subsequent d i a g n o s i s of pneumonia, c l e a r l y s u p p o r t t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s decision. The D i v i s i o n occupied a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o make t h e c r u c i a l f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t had i n f a c t occurred. I t c o u l d observe t h e demeanor of t h e w i t n e s s e s and determine t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y . W e a r e c o g n i z a n t of t h e r u l e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may

r e v e r s e t h e D i v i s i o n o n l y i f s u b s t a n t i a l evidence c l e a r l y preponder- a t i n g against t h e findings i s introduced i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. Rumsey v. C a r d i n a l Petroleum, Mont . 530 P.2d 433, 32 S t . Rep. 1, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . However, i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e a d d i t i o n a l testimony added l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o t h e testimony presented before t h e Division. Claimant r e t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e f a c t s of t h e a l l e g e d i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t b u t h i s testimony was merely a "rehash" of t h e testimony p r e s e n t e d b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n . Similar testimony met w i t h d i s a p p r o v a l i n Rasmussen v. Gibson Products Co. of Bozeman, Mon t . , 527 P.2d 563, 31 St.Rep. 860. claimant's wife a l s o t e s t i f i e d before t h e d i s t r i c t court. Her testimony was t h a t c l a i m a n t had experienced pain i n h i s lower back on t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t . However, no e f f o r t was made t o determine i f t h e back p a i n s were caused by t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t o r whether t h e y were t h e r e s u l t of c l a i m a n t ' s long h i s t o r y of back problems. W f i n d t h e o t h e r c o n t e n t i o n s r a i s e d by c l a i m a n t t o be e without m e r i t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d when i t r e v e r s e d t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s . The evidence d i d n o t c l e a r l y p r e p o n d e r a t e against those findings. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e i s dismissed. We Concur:

------------ ----------------- Justice P