Rasmussen v. Gibson Products Co.

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: October 27, 1974
• Docket: 12714
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 12714

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN

MAXINE I. RASMUSSEN ,

Claimant and Respondent,

-vs - GIBSON PRODUCTS C M A Y O BOZEMAN, O PN F

Employer and A p p e l l a n t ,

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h ~ u d i c i a lD i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellants :

K e e f e r and Roybal, B i l l i n g s , Montana N e i l S. K e e f e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana

F o r Respondent :

D r y s d a l e , McLean and S c u l l y , Bozeman, Montana James A. McLean a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: September 1 6 , 1974 ,;r- - -: 8 .+ Decided : M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Court . T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

of G a l l a t i n County r e v e r s i n g a n o r d e r of t h e Worlunen's Compensa-

t i o n Division (the Division). The D i v i s i o n had d e n i e d t h e p e t i -

t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t , Maxine Rasmussen, f o r a d d i t i o n a l workmen's

compensation b e n e f i t s f o r a n o l d i n j u r y s h e s u s t a i n e d on October

1 4 , 1969, w h i l e employed by Gibsons i n Bozeman, Montana.

The h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n was h e l d f i r s t on J u n e

11, 1973, and a g a i n on August 22, 1973, when i t was c o n c l u d e d .

A t t h i s hearing t h e following evidence w a s presented: Respondent

t e s t i f i e d t h a t on October 1 4 , 1969, s h e s u f f e r e d a n i n j u r y t o h e r

back d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of h e r employment w i t h Gibsons i n Bozeman;

t h a t t h e I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board (now t h e Workmen's Compensation

D i v i s i o n ) compensated h e r f o r wages l o s t from October 16 t h r o u g h

October 27, 1969, and f o r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d from October

20 t h r o u g h December 8 , 1969; t h a t s h e r e t u r n e d t o work a t Gibsons

a f t e r October 27, 1969, b u t p e r s i s t e n t back t r o u b l e compelled h e r

t o q u i t d u r i n g t h e summer of 1970; t h a t i n J u n e 1970, d u r i n g a

t r a i n r i d e t o Oregon h e r back problems i n t e n s i f i e d and s h e t h e r e -

a f t e r v i s i t e d a c h i r o p r a c t o r i n Oregon who gave minor r e l i e f ; t h a t

on August 3 , 1970, s h e commenced work a t A r t c r a f t P r i n t e r s i n

Bozeman, b u t i n a b i l i t y t o l i f t a n y t h i n g and back p a i n from j u s t

s i t t i n g c a u s e d h e r t o q u i t on October 30, 1970; t h a t from December

1970, t o September 1971, s h e a t t e m p t e d s e v e r a l l i g h t housekeep-

i n g j o b s , b u t was f o r c e d t o q u i t a l l of them on a c c o u n t of h e r back; t h a t i n December 1 9 7 1 , s h e o b t a i n e d employment on Tom

H o l d s w o r t h l s egg farm n e a r Bozeman, b u t h e r back b o t h e r e d h e r d o i n g t h e work; t h a t i n J u n e 1972, s h e t o o k a n o t h e r t r i p t o Oregon, b u t t h e s i t t i n g b o t h e r e d h e r s o s e v e r e l y t h a t s h e c o u l d

h a r d l y walk, and when s h e r e t u r n e d home s h e was u n a b l e t o l i f t anything; t h a t i n J u l y 1972, Holdsworth f i n a l l y l e t h e r go b e c a u s e h e r back s i m p l y would n o t p e r m i t h e r t o do any work; t h a t

on J u l y 1 4 , 1972, s h e f i l e d a c l a i m w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n a l l e g i n g

a n i n j u r y o r a r e c u r r e n c e t h e r e o f on J u l y 5 , 1972; t h a t s h e knew

Holdsworth d i d n o t c a r r y workmen's compensation i n s u r a n c e b u t he

d i d c a r r y m e d i c a l i n s u r a n c e t h a t he t h o u g h t might c o v e r h e r , b u t

s h e was u n f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o r f i l i n g workmen's

compensation c l a i m s .

Dr. De H e e t d e r k s , who t r e a t e d r e s p o n d e n t f o r h e r 1969

i n j u r y a t Gibsons, d i a g n o s e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o n d i t i o n t h e n a s a

muscle s t r a i n and r e l e a s e d h e r from h i s c a r e i n December 1969.

Respondent d i d n o t s e e a d o c t o r a g a i n u n t i l sometime i n 1972, b u t

t e s t i f i e d t h i s was b e c a u s e D r . De H e e t d e r k s s a i d s h e would j u s t

have t o l i v e w i t h h e r c o n d i t i o n . A f t e r seeing D r . D e Heetderks

a g a i n i n 1972, r e s p o n d e n t a l s o v i s i t e d D r s . Varberg, Hurnberger,

and Robinson a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s b e g i n n i n g i n J u n e 1972, and

ending A p r i l 1973. Dr. Humberger t e s t i f i e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t t o l d

him s h e was u n s u c c e s s f u l i n work b e c a u s e of back p a i n ; t h a t i n

December 1972, he d i a g n o s e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s c o n d i t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e

h e r n i a t e d d i s c ; b u t t h a t h e c o u l d n o t s a y w i t h any d e g r e e of

c e r t a i n t y whether t h e r e w a s a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n -

j u r y s u s t a i n e d by r e s p o n d e n t on October 1 4 , 1969 and h e r c o n d i t i o n

i n J u l y 1972, b u t more w i l l be s a i d a b o u t t h i s h e r e a f t e r .

On t h e b a s i s of t h i s e v i d e n c e , t h e D i v i s i o n found t h a t

a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e f a i l e d t o s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g o f p r o x i m a t e c a u s e between r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r e s e n t d i s a b i l i t y and h e r

i n j u r y of October 1 4 , 1969, and concluded t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was

n o t e n t i t l e d t o f u r t h e r workmen's compensation b e n e f i t s .

Respondent t i m e l y p e t i t i o n e d f o r a r e h e a r i n g b u t t h e Div-

i s i o n on October 30, 1 9 7 3 , d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n . T h e r e a f t e r respond-

e n t p e r f e c t e d a n a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t under t h e p r o v i s i o n s

o f s e c t i o n 92-833, R.C.M. 1947. The h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was h e l d on J a n -

u a r y 1 4 , 1974. I n a d d i t i o n t o having t h e c e r t i f i e d r e c o r d of

t h e D i v i s i o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y from respond-

e n t , D r . Humberger, Roberta Adams, a former co-worker o f re-

s p o n d e n t ' s a t A r t c r a f t , and Tom Holdsworth, h e r l a s t employer.

R e s p o n d e n t ' s t e s t i m o n y was more o r d e r l y t h a n t h a t h e a r d by t h e D i v i s i o n , b u t i n s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n e d n o t h i n g new e x c e p t f o r t h e

f a c t s h e had undergone s u r g e r y f o r a h e r n i a t e d d i s c a f t e r t h e D i v i s i o n p r o c e e d i n g s had c l o s e d .

Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t complained of back t r o u b l e

a f t e r o n l y two weeks a t A r t c r a f t and a g a i n b e f o r e s h e q u i t . Holdsworth t e s t i f i e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t t o l d him a b o u t h e r back problems b e f o r e s h e t o o k t h e job; t h a t r e s p o n d e n t t h e r e a f t e r con-

t i n u e d t o complain a b o u t h e r back, which became p r o g r e s s i v e l y

worse, e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r h e r J u n e 1 9 7 2 , t r i p t o Oregon; and t h a t

s i n c e r e s p o n d e n t f e l t s h e had a g g r a v a t e d t h e o l d i n j u r y s u f f e r e d

a t Gibsons, a f t e r h e found s h e was n o t c o v e r e d by h i s own m e d i c a l

i n s u r a n c e he a d v i s e d h e r t o reopen t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e D i v i s i o n .

Dr. Humberger t e s t i f i e d t h a t on November 7 , 1973, h e p e r - formed s u r g e r y on r e s p o n d e n t f o r removal of a h e r n i a t e d d i s c ; t h a t

t h e h e r n i a t e d d i s c c o u l d be r e l a t e d back t o t h e 1969 i n j u r y a t

Gibsons; and t h a t t h e symptoms i n g e n e r a l of r e s p o n d e n t ' s back

t r o u b l e d a t e d back t o t h e i n j u r y a t Gibsons.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t r e s p o n d e n t c o n t i n u e d t o

s u f f e r from and complain of i n t e r m i t t e n t low back p a i n from t h e t i m e o f h e r i n j u r y a t Gibsons i n 1969 t o t h e p r e s e n t ; t h a t t h i s c o n d i t i o n p r e v e n t e d h e r from working a t l e n g t h a t any job; and

t h a t a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r e s e n t back c o n d i t i o n w a s c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e i n j u r y a t Gibsons. The c o u r t concluded t h a t a p p e l l a n t U n i v e r s a l U n d e r w r i t e r s I n s u r -

a n c e Company w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any compensation due r e s p o n d e n t and that the cause should be remanded to the Division in order to determine the extent of respondent's disability and the amount of her award. It is from this decision that appellants appeal. Two issues are presented to us for review: (1) Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting additional evi- dence? (2) Was there a preponderance of credible evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the district court? A district court has authority to take "additional evidence" in the workmen's compensation cases it hears on appeal from the Division. Section 92-834, R.C.M. 1947 provides: " * * * The court may, upon the hearing, for good cause shown, permit additional evidence to be introduced, but, in the absence of such permission from the court, the cause shall be heard on the record of the board, as certified to the court by it. The trial of the matter shall be de novo, and upon such trial the court shall determine whether or not the board regularly pursued its authority, and whether or not the findings of the board ought to be sustained, and whether or not such findings are reasonable under all the cir- cumstances of the case." It should be noted that appellants timely objected to all the "additional evidence" in the instant case--the testimony of respondent, Adams, Holdsworth, and Dr. Humberger. We think respondent's testimony as a whole is beyond the scope of "additional evidence" as that term is used in the stat- ute. Except for clarifying a few dates and relating the fact of her subsequent back operation, respondent simply gave a repeat of her performance before the Diuision. Similar testimony has met with our approval in the past, but only because of exigent circumstances not present here. -See, for example, Best v. London Guarantee & Acc. Co., 100 Mont. 332, 47 P.2d 656 (claimant neither personally present nor represented by counsel, board's decision denying compensation was based on insurance carrier's version of t h e f a c t s ) and Tweedie v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board, 101

Mont. 256, 53 P.2d 1145 ( c l a i m a n t n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l a t

board h e a r i n g , e v i d e n c e adduced was s o i n c o m p l e t e and c o n f u s - i n g t h a t an i n t e l l i g e n t d e c i s i o n c o u l d n o t have been r e a c h e d ) .

On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Adams, Holdsworth, and D r . Humberger i s a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e f o r good c a u s e shown.

Dr. Humberger d i d n o t h i n g e l s e t h a n r e p o r t r e s p o n d e n t ' s m e d i c a l

c o n d i t i o n from t h e c l o s e of t h e D i v i s i o n h e a r i n g t o t h e d a t e o f t h e d i s t r i c t court hearing. It is well s e t t l e d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t may r e c e i v e e v i d e n c e b r i n g i n g t h e f a c t u a l r e c o r d up t o d a t e .

Sykes v . Republic Coal Co., 94 Mont. 2 3 9 , 244, 22 P.2d 157.

A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g t o

have Adams and Holdsworth t e s t i f y b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n and conse-

q u e n t l y h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d "good c a u s e " under s e c t i o n 92-834,

R.C.M. 1947. Had t h e s e w i t n e s s e s merely c o r r o b o r a t e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s

t e s t i m o n y t h a t s h e o f t e n s u f f e r e d back p a i n a f t e r t h e i n j u r y a t

Gibsons i n 1969, w e m i g h t be i n c l i n e d t o a g r e e . However, Adams

and Holdsworth a l s o spoke t o t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e of whether t h e r e w a s a n i n t e r v e n i n g i n j u r y which c o u l d have been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s back t r o u b l e . The t e s t i m o n y of Holdsworth i s p a r -

t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s regard:

"Q. P r i o r t o M r s . Rasmussen commencing work f o r you, d i d s h e t e l l you a b o u t any of h e r p r e v i o u s background? A. Yes. She a p p l i e d f o r t h e j o b and I t o l d h e r we would l i k e h e r t o l o o k o v e r t h e j o b and see what s h e w a s e x p e c t e d t o do. She d i d come o u t and o v e r l o o k t h e work. - She t o l d m e a t t h a t t i m e s h e had been i n j u r e d w h i l e working a t Gibsons, t h a t s h e t h o u g h t s h e would be a b l e t o h a n d l e t h e j o b , and s h e would l i k e t o try. "Q. Did s h e s a y a n y t h i n g a b o u t h e r back b o t h e r - i n g h e r a t t h a t - t i m e ? AI Not s p e c i f i c a l l y a t that particular time. She s a i d s h e had been i n j u r e d a t Gibsons, and t h a t h e r back had b o t h e r - ed h e r . And a g a i n s h e d i d n ' t s a y i t was a t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r time. She j u s t s a i d s h e hoped s h e would be a b l e t o h a n d l e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r work. "Q. A f t e r s h e worked f o r you f o r w h i l e , d i d s h e complain a b o u t h e r back? A . Y e s , s h e d i d .

"Q. Do you r e c a l l when t h i s was, f i r s t ? A. She complained of h e r back j u s t g r a d u a l l y . h d i n watching h e r work, I c o u l d s e e h e r back was b o t h e r i n g h e r , W began t o r e s t r i c t t h e e t y p e of work t h a t s h e w a s d o i n g . I n o t h e r words, t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n j o b s i n t h e p r o c e s s - i n g p l a n t , t h e c a n d l i n g j o b , t h e r e i s no l i f t - i n g a t a l l . I n u n l o a d i n g t h e egg p r o c e s s i n g machines, t h e l i f t i n g i s v e r y r e s t r i c t e d . W e began t o r e s t r i c t t h e amount of t h e a r e a i n which s h e worked. She began t o complain v e r y s e v e r e l y of h e r back problems a f t e r s h e came back from t h i s v a c a t i o n . Her work t h e n was r e s t r i c t e d e n t i r e l y t o t h e c a n d l i n g . And a f t e r a s h o r t w h i l e , it became a p p a r e n t s h e c o u l d n ' t d o t h a t , and had t o q u i t . " (Emphasis added)

Obviously t h i s t e s t i m o n y l e n d s i n d e p e n d e n t s u p p o r t t o D r .

Humberger's o p i n i o n t h a t a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between

r e s p o n d e n t ' s back t r o u b l e i n 1972 and h e r i n j u r y a t Gibsons i n

1969. I n s h o r t , t h e t e s t i m o n y t o o k on added r e l e v a n c e i n l i g h t of what D r . Humberger had t o s a y a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g .

Respondent c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y have f o r s e e n t h i s a t t h e t i m e t h e

D i v i s i o n conducted i t s p r o c e e d i n g s ; a c c o r d i n g l y , a p p e l l a n t s '

o b j e c t i o n on t h i s p o i n t i s n o t w e l l t a k e n .

W e t h i n k t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t could f i n d a preponderance

o f c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s c l a i m , b o t h from t h e

a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g and

t h e r e c o r d of t h e D i v i s i o n . The c r u c i a l element of r e s p o n d e n t ' s c a s e w a s whether

s h e c o u l d show t h a t h e r back t r o u b l e i n 1972 was c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d

t o h e r i n j u r y a t Gibsons i n 1 9 6 9 . Dr. Humberger t e s t i f i e d a t

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g that i n h i s o p i n i o n , based on a medi- c a l h i s t o r y of r e s p o n d e n t and t h e f a c t of h e r o p e r a t i o n f o r a h e r n i a t e d d i s c , such a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d i d i n d e e d e x i s t . This

o p i n i o n was s u p p o r t e d n o t o n l y by t h e t e s t i m o n y of Adams and Holds-

w o r t h , a s d i s c u s s e d above, b u t a l s o by two o t h e r d o c t o r s . Dr.

D e H e e t d e r k s w r o t e a l e t t e r d a t e d September 1, 1972, t o Douglas

D r y s d a l e , r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y , wherein h e s t a t e d i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t i n 1969 he f e l t r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r y a t Gibsons w a s r e l a t i v e -

l y minor and a p p a r e n t l y r e s o l v e d i t s e l f ; t h a t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n

of r e s p o n d e n t i n 1972 was i n c o n c l u s i v e a s t o t h e n a t u r e and c a u s e of h e r back d i f f i c u l t i e s t h e n ; and t h a t h e r e f e r r e d r e s p o n -

d e n t t o D r . Varberg who, a f t e r e x a m i n a t i o n , f e l t s h e might have

some d i s c o g e n i c d i s e a s e . The l a s t p a r a g r a p h of t h i s l e t t e r ,

however, q u a l i f i e s any u n c e r t a i n t i e s D r . De H e e t d e r k s may have

had and c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s D r . Humberger's o p i n i o n :

" I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o s a y w i t h c e r t a i n t y whether o r n o t t h e low back t r o u b l e of O c t o b e r , 1969 i s r e l a t e d t o t h e J u l y , 1972 back problems. How- - e v e r , i f t h e p a t i e n t t r u l y d o e s have d i s c o g e n l c d i s e a s e i n t h e low back a r e a , i t v e r y p r o b a b l y is related. I would encourage you t o c o n s u l t w i t h D r . Varberg on t h i s m a t t e r . " (Emphasis added)

On October 6, 1972, D r . Varberg a l s o w r o t e t o D r y s d a l e and r e l a t e d

h i s e x a m i n a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t . H e concluded w i t h t h i s p a r a g r a p h :

" I t is highly l i k e l y there is a causal r e l a t i o n - s h i p between t h e a c c i d e n t o f October 1 4 , 1969 and her present condition. I f s h e d o e s undergo a myelogram and t h i s i s p o s i t i v e toward t h i s d i s e a s e t h e n it would be m o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a d i r e c t y c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i n c i d e n t o f October 1 4 , 1969 and h e r p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n . I would have t o r e s e r v e a n a b s o l u t e d e f i n i t e o p i n i o n , however, u n t i l t h e myelogram was accomplished." (Emphasis added) While t h e r e s u l t s of t h e myelogram w e r e n o t p o s i t i v e , t h e r e i s no g e t t i n g around t h e f a c t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t i n November, 1973, was

found t o have a h e r n i a t e d d i s c and underwent s u r g e r y f o r t h a t

reason. I t d o e s n o t seem u n f a i r t o s a y D r . Varberg would concur

i n D r . Humberger's o p i n i o n a s t o t h e c a u s e of r e s p o n d e n t ' s back

trouble. The D i v i s i o n i n d e c i d i n g a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t a p p a r e n t l y gave c o n s i d e r a b l e w e i g h t t o t h e f a c t t h a t b e f o r e f i l i n g t h e p r e s e n t c l a i m a g a i n s t Gibsons r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a c l a i m a g a i n s t Holdsworth who c a r r i e d no workmen's compensation i n s u r a n c e . This a c t i o n

might imply t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was aware s h e s u f f e r e d a new i n j u r y while working at Holdsworth's and that the claim against Gibsons was founded upon something less than good faith. At the Division hearing respondent explained she really did not know the correct procedures for filing a workmen's compensation claim; but the Division was not convinced. However, we think the record is replete with evidence from which the district court could find assurance respondent was telling the whole story. For one thing, both Adams and Holdsworth testified that respondent complained of back trouble during her employment with Artcraft and the egg farm. For another, the Division's interoffice communications of July 10 and July 28, 1972, reveal that respondent phoned the office to inquire about eligibility for workmen's compensation benefits, saying she "(was) having difficulty with her back resulting from her accident of October 14, 1969'' and "did not feel she had a new injury but that it was a recurrence of the accident she had on October 14, 1969, while employed by Gibsons * * *". The case of Vetsch v. Helena Transf. & Stor. Co., 154 Mont. 106, 460 P.2d 757, was relied on by the Division as controlling, but in our view this reliance is misplaced because of factual distinctions from the instant case. Vetsch involved a workmen's compensation claimant who in 1964 fell on a flight of stairs. He claimed injuries to his back and elbows, but the accident was not reported or compensated as an industrial accident. Eventually he quit Helena Transfer & Storage over a commission dispute. There- after during a period of more than two years claimant worked for nine firms as a heavy construction worker. He never complained to any of these employers of back trouble, nor did he ever give it as a reason for quitting. During the winter of 1967, claim- ant strained his back while shoveling snow. In holding that claimant failed to show the 1964 fall was the proximate cause of his present condition, the Court stressed the fact that claimant subsequently performed heavy construction work and his working ability was not impaired until after the winter of 1967. Here the situation is very different: (1) respondent suffered a previous industrial accident and received benefits therefor; (2) she thereafter regularly complained of back trouble to sub- sequent employers; and (3) she attempted to do only relatively light work, and her back would not even permit her to do that for any length of time. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

.............................. Chief Justice We concur:

.............................. Justices