CATTEYSON v FALLS MOBILE HOME CEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14239 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 ROSEMARY F. CATTEYSON, Claimant and Respondent, -vsFALLS MOBILE HOME CENTER, INC., Employer, and GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Hon. William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Barry Olson, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided : April 12, 1979 AU G - 9 1979 Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . F a l l s Mobile Home C e n t e r , I n c . , and G l a c i e r G e n e r a l A s s u r a n c e Company, d e f e n d a n t s , a p p e a l from t h e m o d i f i e d c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment d a t e d F e b r u a r y 27, 1 9 7 8 , e n t e r e d by t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . Respondent c l a i m a n t was a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t employed by F a l l s Mobile Home C e n t e r , I n c . G l a c i e r General Assurance Company was e m p l o y e r ' s i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t i n s u r e r . The Workers' Compensation C o u r t by i t s judgment d e c i d e d t h a t c l a i m a n t w a s e n t i t l e d t o temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y payments u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-701 MCA, from November 20, 1 9 7 4 , t o O c t o b e r 27, 1 9 7 6 , and t e m p o r a r y t o t a l payments from O c t o b e r 28, 1976, t o March 3 , 1977, f o r t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e c a r r i e r t o n o t i f y t h e Workers' Compensation D i v i s i o n o f i t s intention t o u n i l a t e r a l l y terminate benefits. 71-609 MCA. S e c t i o n 39- The c o u r t f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t c l a i m a n t s u f f e r e d 1 0 p e r c e n t permanent p a r t i a l i n j u r y u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-711 1 6 ( 1 2 ) MCA, e n t i t l i n g h e r t o b e n e f i t s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 39-71-703 MCA. F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t awarded c l a i m a n t a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 39-71-612 MCA, i n t h e amount o f $1500. S h o r t l y b e f o r e 4:00 p.m. on November 20, 1974, c l a i m a n t was i n j u r e d i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t a s s h e w a s h e a d i n g n o r t h on 1 3 t h S t r e e t N o r t h i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t , c l a i m a n t had two jobs--one A t the a s a handy p e r s o n f o r F a l l s Mobile Home and o n e a s a d i s p a t c h e r f o r B l a c k and White Cab. T h e r e w a s some d i s p u t e a s t o w h a t c l a i m a n t was d o i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t . The c a r r i e r c o n t e n d e d s h e was on h e r way t o h e r j o b a t B l a c k and w h i t e Cab; c l a i m a n t c o n t e n d e d , and t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t f o u n d , t h a t s h e had been r u n n i n g a n e r r a n d f o r F a l l s ~ o b i l e Home. On December 5, 1974, claimant filed for benefits and the compensation carrier for Falls Mobile Home began paying her benefits. Later, and while compensation benefits were being paid, the carrier notified claimant by letter that compensation would be discontinued when her doctor released her to work. Temporary total benefits were paid until June 25, 1976, when claimant was released for work. The payments were then discontinued and a "Compensation Advice Form" was sent to claimant on July 22, 1975, and forwarded to the Workers' Compensation Division. Thereafter, the parties corresponded for a period of ten months in an effort to determine whether claimant had suffered any permanent disability. Later claimant filed a petition with the Workers' Compensation Court for a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the carrier discovered that claimant may have been on her way to her second job at the time of the accident. It therefore withdrew its settlement offers and chose to defend on the ground that claimant had not suffered a compensable injury. The Workers' Compensation Court found in favor of claimant, and the carrier appeals. Initially we are asked to determine whether the evidence supports the Workers' Compensation Court's conclusion that the employee was injured in an industrial accident and, as a result, was permanently or partially disabled. We find that it does. While there was disputed evidence as to what claimant was actually doing at the time of the accident, the workers' Compensation Court found that she was running an errand for Falls Mobile Home. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support this finding: "Whether t h i s C o u r t a g r e e s i s o f no moment. S i n c e c r e d i b l e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e app e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d i n s u p p o r t o f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , w e a r e bound by i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e f a c t s . " McGee v . B e c h t e l C o r ~ . (1979) Mont. , 595 P . 2d 1156, i 1 5 8 59, 36 St.Rep. 220, 224. There i s a l s o s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c l a i m a n t w a s permanently p a r t i a l l y d i s a b l e d and e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s u n d e r s e c t i o n 39-71-703 MCA. Next w e a r e a s k e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e Workers' Comp e n s a t i o n C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e c a r r i e r had u n i l a t e r a l l y t e r m i n a t e d c l a i m a n t ' s b e n e f i t s and t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n was i m p r o p e r . I n s u p p o r t o f i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, t h e c o u r t c i t e d C l a r k v . H e n s e l P h e l p s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company ( 1 9 7 7 ) , , Mont. 560 P.2d 515, 34 St.Rep. 61. I n Clark, t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t was t h e n e c e s s i t y o f g i v i n g c l a i m a n t w r i t t e n n o t i c e and a c q u i r i n g a p p r o v a l of t h e D i v i s i o n o f Workers' Compensation p r i o r t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of benefits. The C o u r t found t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e t o b e s e c t i o n 92-615, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 39-71-609 MCA, which o r i g i n a l l y r e a d : ". . . I f t h e i n s u r e r determines t o i n i t i a l l y deny t h e c l a i m , o r a f t e r a c l a i m h a s been acc e p t e d , t e r m i n a t e s b i w e e k l y c o m p e n s a t i o n benef i t s , i t may d o s o o n l y a £ t e r £ i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) d a y s w r i t t e n n o t i c e t o t h e c l a i m a n t and t h e d i v i s i o n and a f t e r w r i t t e n a p p r o v a l o f t h e d i v i s i o n . " T h i s s e c t i o n h a s s i n c e been amended and no l o n g e r r e q u i r e s w r i t t e n approval of t h e Division. 6 0 9 MCA. S e c t i o n 39-71- T h i s amendment, however, h a s no e f f e c t on t h e Clark r u l e . The i s s u e i n C l a r k was o n e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n this state. I n r e a c h i n g o u r d e c i s i o n w e l o o k e d t o Xhode I s l a n d which had i n t e r p r e t e d a s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o o u r p r e s e n t d a y s e c t i o n 39-71-609 MCA, and h e l d : ". . . i f t h e employer d o e s a t t e m p t t o u n i l a t e r a l l y t e r m i n a t e t h e payment of b e n e f i t s such a t tempted t e r m i n a t i o n i s i n e f f e c t i v e . The employer remains l i a b l e f o r t h e payment of b e n e f i t s u n t i l t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s accomplished by f o l l o w i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y notice provision." C l a r k , 560 P.2d a t 517. Here, t h e c a r r i e r a d v i s e d t h e employer and t h e D i v i s i o n some 27 d a y s a f t e r t e r m i n a t i o n and n o t 1 5 d a y s b e f o r e a s i s r e q u i r e d by law. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t was c o r - r e c t i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Clark r u l e i n t h i s case. Once i t h a s been d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s e c t i o n 39-71-609 MCA and C l a r k have been v i o l a t e d , t h e c a r r i e r " r e m a i n s l i a b l e f o r t h e payment of b e n e f i t s u n t i l t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s accomp l i s h e d by f o l l o w i n g t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n . " C l a r k , 560 P.2d a t 517. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t c o r r e c t l y found t h a t c l a i m a n t was e n t i t l e d t o temporary t o t a l b e n e f i t s from t h e d a t e of t h e improper t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e d a t e of i t s o r d e r f o r t h e f a i l u r e of t h e c a r r i e r t o comply w i t h s e c t i o n 39-71-609 MCA. The c a r r i e r c o n t e n d s t h a t even i f t h e n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n was improper, t h a t c l a i m a n t had waived h e r r i g h t t o notice. This contention i s without m e r i t . "No agreement by [ c l a i m a n t ] t o waive any r i g h t s under t h i s c h a p t e r f o r a n i n j u r y t o be r e c e i v e d s h a l l b e v a l i d . " MCA S e c t i o n 39-71-409 . Furthermore, n o t i c e i s a l s o r e q u i r e d t o be given t o t h e d i v i s i o n under s e c t i o n 39-71-609 MCA. There i s no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e D i v i s i o n waived i t s r i g h t t o notice. The c a r r i e r q u e s t i o n s whether t h e Workers1 Compensation C o u r t c a n a g g r e g a t e e a r n i n g s from two s e p a r a t e and u n r e l a t e d employments f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e . T h i s C o u r t h a s r e c e n t l y approved t h e a g g r e g a t i o n o f wages from s e p a r a t e and u n r e l a t e d employments. Johnson, I n c . (19781, Mont. , Walker v . H. F. 591 P.2d 1 8 1 , 35 F i n a l l y , t h e c a r r i e r o b j e c t s t o a n award of a t t o r n e y fees. S e c t i o n 39-71-612 MCA p r o v i d e s t h a t i f : ". . . c o n t r o v e r s y r e l a t e s t o t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n d u e and t h e s e t t l e m e n t o r award i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e amount p a i d o r t e n d e r e d by t h e employer o r i n s u r e r , a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d i v i s i o n o r t h e w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n judge i f t h e c a s e h a s gone t o a h e a r i n g , b a s e d s o l e l y upon t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e amount s e t t l e d f o r o r awarded a n d t h e amount t e n d e r e d o r p a i d , may b e awarded i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount o f compensation. " Further, " [ t l h e finding t h a t claimant is e n t i t l e d t o s e c t i o n 92-703.1 [now s e c t i o n 39-71-703 g e r s s e c t i o n 92-618 claimant t o '. . . MCA] b e n e f i t s t r i g - [now s e c t i o n 39-71-612 MCA] e n t i t l i n g a reasonable attorney's f e e a s estab- l i s h e d by t h e d i v i s i o n o r workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n judge . . . Walker, 591 P . 2d a t 185. 1 11 C l a i m a n t c l e a r l y f i t s i n t o b o t h o f t h e above s i t u a tions. T h e r e i s a l s o n o t h i n g t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e compensa- t i o n judge d e v i a t e d from t h e f o r m u l a s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 3971-613 MCA. The judgment o f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i s a £f i r m e d . t Justice / ' We concur: 7Adb4 w a d q Chief Justice \.-:)i,.- tt Justices \L~~L-/

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.