No. 13436 IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF T l STATE OF MONTANA IE 1978
WILLIAM J. LEARY, Claimant and Appellant,
THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, and THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Insurer and Respondent.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Stephen M. Williams argued, Butte, Montana
Submitted: January 30, 1978 FEB Decided. 2 i 11i'd : 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 :
Claimant William J. Leary s u f f e r e d a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n
a t approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. A t t h e time
of t h e a t t a c k , claimant was employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e
Anaconda Company a t i t s p l a n t i n Anaconda, Montana. Claimant
submitted a workers' compensation claim s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r ;
i t was denied by h i s employer. O November 18, 1975, claimant n
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation
Division requesting a determination of t h e compensability of
t h e claim. He f u r t h e r requested c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e
penalty f o r t h e employer's r e f u s a l t o pay compensation pre-
s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 92-849, R.C.M. 1947.
Hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n was held on January 21, 1976, i n
t h e Workers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, t h e Court
entered i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law denying
t h e claim i n i t s e n t i r e t y , on t h e b a s i s t h a t claimant f a i l e d
t o demonstrate h i s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from unusual s t r a i n
while engaged i n work a c t i v i t y . Claimant appeals.
A t t h e time of h i s h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant was 53 years
of age and had been employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda
Company f o r 20 years.
For a period of four t o f i v e years p r i o r t o t h e h e a r t
a t t a c k , claimant worked a job known a s t h e "swing job1'. Each
week claimant worked two days a t t h e smelter s t a c k s u b s t a t i o n
connecting and disconnecting e l e c t r i c a l switches; two days were
spent a t t h e main s u b s t a t i o n taking meter readings and compiling
r e p o r t s , and one day he worked i n p l a n t maintenance. While engaged i n p l a n t maintenace, claimant was a v a i l a b l e f o r work
wherever an e l e c t r i c i a n was needed a t t h e smelter.
O December 11, 1974, while working p l a n t maintenance, n
claimant and h i s p a r t n e r , Thomas Brebrick, were s e n t t o t h e o l d
phosphate p l a n t t o disconnect two 2,300 v o l t switches. The o l d in prior phosphate p l a n t had not beenloperation f o r some time/ t o December
11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature i n the b u i l d i n g
was approximately 30' t o 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy
clothing.
I n o r d e r t o reach t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick
climbed t h r e e t o four f l i g h t s of s t a i r s . I n t h e process of
obtaining l i g h t i n g equipment and a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e power
was shut down p r i o r t o disconnection of t h e switches, claimant
and Brebrick ascended and descended t h e s t a i r s s e v e r a l times.
The switches were on wheels enabling them t o be moved. To
move t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick l i f t e d them over pieces
of angle i r o n fastened t o t h e f r o n t of t h e wheels. Estimates
of t h e weight of t h e switches ranged from 100 t o 300 pounds, t o a
maximum of 800 pounds.
The work a t t h e phosphate p l a n t was completed s h o r t l y
a f t e r 1 1 : O O a.m. Claimant experienced no ill f e e l i n g a t t h i s
time. Claimant and Brebrick returned t o t h e foundry with t h e i r
equipment and prepared f o r lunch. A t approximately 12:30 p.m.,
a f t e r f i n i s h i n g lunch, claimant began t o experience a s e n s a t i o n
of i n a b i l i t y t o r e l a x and, l a t e r , i n d i g e s t i o n and pressure on
h i s arms. Claimant returned t o t h e job, b u t r e s t e d u n t i l h i s
s h i f t ended a t 3:00 p.m. Claimant then drove home and r e t i r e d
f o r t h e evening. The following morning, claimant was examined
by D r . Huffman a t Community Hospital i n Anaconda. The c o n d i t i o n was diagnosed a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , and claimant was
irnmedia t e l y h o s p i t a l i z e d . Claimant remained i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r
fourteen days. D r . Huffman t r e a t e d claimant u n t i l March 17, 1975,
when claimant was r e l e a s e d t o r e t u r n t o work.
Following h i s r e l e a s e , claimant submitted h i s claim f o r
compensation. This a c t i o n ensued from t h e d e n i a l of t h a t claim.
Claimant r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal. Critical t o the
r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case i s t h e determination of whether c l a i m a n t ' s
h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from work r e l a t e d s t r e s s o r s t r a i n . Section
92-418(1), R.C.M. 1947.
I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, t h e workers'
Compensation Court found:
"That according t o medical evidence, t h e h e a r t a t t a c k s u f f e r e d over one and one-half hours a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and a f t e r t h e claimant had e a t e n lunch, t h e work a c t i v i t y i s n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a r t attack.''
The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, a s a matter
of law, t h a t claimant had n o t proved by a preponderance of t h e
evidence t h a t t h e job a c t i v i t y was t h e cause of t h e h e a r t a t t a c k .
The findings and conclusions demonstrate t h a t , i n determining
t h e l a c k of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e Workers' Compensation Court
r e l i e d almost exclusively upon a l e t t e r submitted by D r . Walter
J . Lewis 111, a Missoula c a r d i o l o g i s t , who examined claimant
some two months following t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The l e t t e r was
w r i t t e n primarily a s a response t o c e r t a i n h y p o t h e t i c a l ques-
t i o n s posed t o claimant's physician, D r . Huffman, i n t h e
deposition of the l a t t e r .
D r . Huffman i n d i c a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n and i n o t h e r docu-
ments before t h e workers' Compensation Court, t h a t he found a
c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e strenuous work a c t i v i t y involved i n climbing numerous f l i g h t s of s t a i r s and l i f t i n g heavy e l e c t r i c a l
switches, and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . However, t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l ques-
t i o n s posed, although assuming v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s
produced a t t h e subsequent t r i a l , e s t a b l i s h e d no time r e f e r e n c e
between t h e work a c t i v i t y and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . That i s , t h e
h y p o t h e t i c a l s r e f e r t o t h e symptoms of t h e a t t a c k occurring
" s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y . "
D r . Lewis, i n commenting on the h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s ,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 13436 IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF T l STATE OF MONTANA IE 1978
WILLIAM J. LEARY, Claimant and Appellant,
THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, and THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Insurer and Respondent.
Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Stephen M. Williams argued, Butte, Montana
Submitted: January 30, 1978 FEB Decided. 2 i 11i'd : 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 :
Claimant William J. Leary s u f f e r e d a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n
a t approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. A t t h e time
of t h e a t t a c k , claimant was employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e
Anaconda Company a t i t s p l a n t i n Anaconda, Montana. Claimant
submitted a workers' compensation claim s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r ;
i t was denied by h i s employer. O November 18, 1975, claimant n
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation
Division requesting a determination of t h e compensability of
t h e claim. He f u r t h e r requested c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e
penalty f o r t h e employer's r e f u s a l t o pay compensation pre-
s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 92-849, R.C.M. 1947.
Hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n was held on January 21, 1976, i n
t h e Workers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, t h e Court
entered i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law denying
t h e claim i n i t s e n t i r e t y , on t h e b a s i s t h a t claimant f a i l e d
t o demonstrate h i s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from unusual s t r a i n
while engaged i n work a c t i v i t y . Claimant appeals.
A t t h e time of h i s h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant was 53 years
of age and had been employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda
Company f o r 20 years.
For a period of four t o f i v e years p r i o r t o t h e h e a r t
a t t a c k , claimant worked a job known a s t h e "swing job1'. Each
week claimant worked two days a t t h e smelter s t a c k s u b s t a t i o n
connecting and disconnecting e l e c t r i c a l switches; two days were
spent a t t h e main s u b s t a t i o n taking meter readings and compiling
r e p o r t s , and one day he worked i n p l a n t maintenance. While engaged i n p l a n t maintenace, claimant was a v a i l a b l e f o r work
wherever an e l e c t r i c i a n was needed a t t h e smelter.
O December 11, 1974, while working p l a n t maintenance, n
claimant and h i s p a r t n e r , Thomas Brebrick, were s e n t t o t h e o l d
phosphate p l a n t t o disconnect two 2,300 v o l t switches. The o l d in prior phosphate p l a n t had not beenloperation f o r some time/ t o December
11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature i n the b u i l d i n g
was approximately 30' t o 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy
clothing.
I n o r d e r t o reach t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick
climbed t h r e e t o four f l i g h t s of s t a i r s . I n t h e process of
obtaining l i g h t i n g equipment and a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e power
was shut down p r i o r t o disconnection of t h e switches, claimant
and Brebrick ascended and descended t h e s t a i r s s e v e r a l times.
The switches were on wheels enabling them t o be moved. To
move t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick l i f t e d them over pieces
of angle i r o n fastened t o t h e f r o n t of t h e wheels. Estimates
of t h e weight of t h e switches ranged from 100 t o 300 pounds, t o a
maximum of 800 pounds.
The work a t t h e phosphate p l a n t was completed s h o r t l y
a f t e r 1 1 : O O a.m. Claimant experienced no ill f e e l i n g a t t h i s
time. Claimant and Brebrick returned t o t h e foundry with t h e i r
equipment and prepared f o r lunch. A t approximately 12:30 p.m.,
a f t e r f i n i s h i n g lunch, claimant began t o experience a s e n s a t i o n
of i n a b i l i t y t o r e l a x and, l a t e r , i n d i g e s t i o n and pressure on
h i s arms. Claimant returned t o t h e job, b u t r e s t e d u n t i l h i s
s h i f t ended a t 3:00 p.m. Claimant then drove home and r e t i r e d
f o r t h e evening. The following morning, claimant was examined
by D r . Huffman a t Community Hospital i n Anaconda. The c o n d i t i o n was diagnosed a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , and claimant was
irnmedia t e l y h o s p i t a l i z e d . Claimant remained i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r
fourteen days. D r . Huffman t r e a t e d claimant u n t i l March 17, 1975,
when claimant was r e l e a s e d t o r e t u r n t o work.
Following h i s r e l e a s e , claimant submitted h i s claim f o r
compensation. This a c t i o n ensued from t h e d e n i a l of t h a t claim.
Claimant r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal. Critical t o the
r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case i s t h e determination of whether c l a i m a n t ' s
h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from work r e l a t e d s t r e s s o r s t r a i n . Section
92-418(1), R.C.M. 1947.
I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, t h e workers'
Compensation Court found:
"That according t o medical evidence, t h e h e a r t a t t a c k s u f f e r e d over one and one-half hours a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and a f t e r t h e claimant had e a t e n lunch, t h e work a c t i v i t y i s n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a r t attack.''
The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, a s a matter
of law, t h a t claimant had n o t proved by a preponderance of t h e
evidence t h a t t h e job a c t i v i t y was t h e cause of t h e h e a r t a t t a c k .
The findings and conclusions demonstrate t h a t , i n determining
t h e l a c k of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e Workers' Compensation Court
r e l i e d almost exclusively upon a l e t t e r submitted by D r . Walter
J . Lewis 111, a Missoula c a r d i o l o g i s t , who examined claimant
some two months following t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The l e t t e r was
w r i t t e n primarily a s a response t o c e r t a i n h y p o t h e t i c a l ques-
t i o n s posed t o claimant's physician, D r . Huffman, i n t h e
deposition of the l a t t e r .
D r . Huffman i n d i c a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n and i n o t h e r docu-
ments before t h e workers' Compensation Court, t h a t he found a
c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e strenuous work a c t i v i t y involved i n climbing numerous f l i g h t s of s t a i r s and l i f t i n g heavy e l e c t r i c a l
switches, and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . However, t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l ques-
t i o n s posed, although assuming v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s
produced a t t h e subsequent t r i a l , e s t a b l i s h e d no time r e f e r e n c e
between t h e work a c t i v i t y and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . That i s , t h e
h y p o t h e t i c a l s r e f e r t o t h e symptoms of t h e a t t a c k occurring
" s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y . "
D r . Lewis, i n commenting on the h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s ,
i n d i c a t e s the time period elapsing between t h e c e s s a t i o n of work
a c t i v i t y and t h e onset of symptoms i s c r i t i c a l . He s t a t e s i f t h e
h e a r t a t t a c k occurred within one-half hour of t h e c e s s a t i o n of
work, he could s t a t e t h e two were c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d . However, i f
t h e h e a r t a t t a c k , a s h e r e , occurred one and one-half hours following
t h e completion of t h e a c t i v i t y , they would n o t be c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d .
W note i n t h i s regard t h a t n e i t h e r physician t e s t i f i e d a t t h e e
January 21 hearing.
While t h e findings and conclusions r e f e r t o and appear t o
be based upon t h e l e t t e r of D r . Lewis, nowhere i s any r e f e r e n c e
made t o t h e medical opinion of D r . Huffman. W a r e unable t o e
a s c e r t a i n from t h e findings and conclusions t h e b a s i s f o r o r
reasoning behind t h e r e j e c t i o n of such opinion.
Upon a thorough review of t h e record, we t h e r e f o r e conclude
t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t medical testimony t o support t h e f i n d i n g s
and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The f i n d i n g s
and conclusions a r e vacated and t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e
Workers' Compensation Court with d i r e c t i o n s t h a t a d d i t i o n a l
medical testimony regarding t h e h e a r t a t t a c k be taken.
ing ~ k i e f us dice Justices .