DeLEARY v ANACONDA ALUM CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12977 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1975 JERRY L, DeLEARY , Claimant and Respondent, -vs - ANACONDA ALUMINUM COMPANY, Employer and Defendant and Appellant, Appeal from: District Court of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t C. Sykes, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Warden, W a l t e r s k i r c h e n and C h r i s t i a n s e n , K a l i s p e l l , Montana M e r r i t t N. Warden a r g u e d , K a l t s p e l l , Montana F o r Respondent : R o b e r t W. G a b r i e l a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: 8 C T 2 5 1975 September 8, 1975 Qcr2 st 1975 M. 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 r Court. T h i s a p p e a l i s taken from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , F l a t h e a d County. The Anaconda Aluminum Company ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s employer) t a k e s i s s u e w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s award of b e n e f i t s t o c l a i m a n t J e r r y L. DeLeary. The i n j u r y i n v o l v e d occurred on August 26, 1971, when c l a i m a n t , employed by Anaconda Aluminum Company a t i t s r e d u c t i o n works a t Columbia F a l l s , Montana, s l i p p e d on a catwalk which r e s u l t e d i n molten aluminum e n t e r i n g h i s l e f t shoe, s e v e r e l y b u r n i n g h i s lower l e f t l e g . Claimant was t r e a t e d immediately by a l o c a l p h y s i c i a n and l a t e r by a p l a s t i c s u r g e r y s p e c i a l i s t from Spokane, Washington. The s p e c i a l i s t performed two o p e r a t i o n s t o e r a d i c a t e s c a r s and a l l e v i a t e s c a r c o n t r a c t i o n , one i n February 1972, t h e second i n December 1972. Claimant chose n o t t o r e t u r n t o h i s former employment and s o n o t i f i e d t h e employer on May 5 , 1972. S e v e r a l months p r i o r t o t h a t n o t i c e c l a i m a n t o b t a i n e d employment a t a f i l l i n g s t a t i o n where he began t o e a r n approximately $600 p e r month. H remained t h e r e e u n t i l September 1973, when he e n t e r e d i n t o a program a s an apprent i c e mechanic e a r n i n g about $500 p e r month. A l l p a r t i e s agreed t h a t throughout t h i s p e r i o d c l a i m a n t experienced a t l e a s t a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e of pain and d i s c o m f o r t from t h e i n j u r i e s and t h a t h i s l e g t i r e d e a s i l y when he s t o o d upon i t f o r any l e n g t h of time. The employer p a i d temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s from t h e d a t e of t h e a c c i d e n t t o t h e d a t e t h a t i t was n o t i f i e d of c l a i m a n t ' s i n tention not t o return. Employer was n o t aware c l a i m a n t had gone t o work on a n o t h e r job i n March 1972. A t a h e a r i n g h e l d i n Play 1974 b e f o r e a h e a r i n g examiner of t h e workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n t o determine whether any a d d i t i o n a l compensation was w a r r a n t e d , medical testimony from t h r e e p h y s i c i a n s was t a k e n . A MLssoula o r t h o p e d i s t gave a r a t i n g of 20% impairment of t h e lower e x t r e m i t y ; a ECalispell o r t h o p e d i s t r a t e d t h e impairment a t 15% of t h e l e g below t h e knee. The p l a s t i c s u r g e r y s p e c i a l i s t from Spokane t e s t i f i e d and r a t e d t h e impairment a s t h a t which would b e e q u a l t o a below t h e knee amputation. How- e v e r , t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e out of s t a t e p h y s i c i a n based h i s o p i n i o n on t h e c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e i n t h e s t a t e of Washington, which a d m i t t e d l y does n o t employ t h e same system used i n t h e s t a t e of Montana. The D i v i s i o n h e a r i n g r e s u l t e d i n an award of an a d d i t i o n a l 60 weeks a t a r a t e of $50 p e r week, l e s s t h e sum deemed o v e r p a i d d u r i n g t h e h e a l i n g p e r i o d , which t h e examiner thought was l i m i t e d t o 26 weeks under s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M. 1947. Claimant p e t i t i o n e d f o r a r e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e D i v i s i o n . O September 1 3 , 1974, f o l l o w i n g r e h e a r i n g , an amended o r d e r was n i s s u e d which s l i g h t l y modified t h e p r i o r o r d e r . Claimant was deemed e n t i t l e d t o temporary p a r t i a l b e n e f i t s and permanent p a r t i a l b e n e f i t s which amounted t o $2359.28, approximately $20 more t h a n t h e f i r s t order. A d d i t i o n a l l y t h e modified o r d e r dekted t h a t p a r t of t h e f i r s t o r d e r which provided f o r a s e t - o f f from t h e amount p a i d d u r i n g t h e h e a l i n g p e r i o d i n e x c e s s of t h e 26 week l i m i t a t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s l i m i t a t i o n a p p l i e d o n l y t o t h e " l o s s of a member" under t h e s t a t u t e . From t h i s o r d e r of September 1 3 , 1974, c l a i m a n t appealed t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . W n o t e h e r e t h a t no f u r t h e r evidence was taken o r e a l l o t ~ e da t t h e r e h e a r i n g s i n c e t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d r e h e a r i n g could be had on t h e b a s i s of t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h e d i v i s i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d a d d i t i o n a l evidence subm i t t e d a t i t s h e a r i n g , b u t took under advisement t h e employer's o b j e c t i o n t o t h e submission of t h i s evidence. The c o u r t , i n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law, s u s t a i n e d t h e employer's o b j e c t i o n and based i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e r e c o r d made b e f o r e t h e ~ o r l u n e n ' sCompensation D i v i s i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted claimant t h e following compensation: I ) Workmen's Compensation b e n e f i t s pursuant t o 1947. s e c t i o n 92-706, R.C.M. Temporary p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s pursuant t o 2) s e c t i o n 92-703, R.C.M. 1947, f o r a t o t a l of 3 1 and 6 / 7 weeks a t t h e r a t e o f $23.07 less per week than what claimant earned a t t h e time of i n j u r y . 3) R.C.M. Temporary t o t a l b e n e f i t s pursuant t o s e c t i o n 92-709, 1947, f o r i n j u r i e s t o t h e lower l e f t e x t r e m i t y f o r a t o t a l of 150 weeks amounting t o $7,500 l e s s t h e 2% d i s c o u n t provided f o r by s e c t i o n 92-715, R.C.M. 1947, l e s s t h e sum of $1,900 a l r e a d y awarded and paid t o c l a i m a n t . The underlying i s s u e i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may award a s t a t u t o r y b e n e f i t f o r f u n c t i o n a l impairment i n a d d i t i o n to a loss ofearning capacity. On appeal t h e employer p l a c e s two i s s u e s b e f o r e t h i s Court. F i r s t , t h i s Court i s asked whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d by f a i l i n g t o c o r r e c t t h e D i v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g i t s d e l e t i o n of t h a t p a r t of t h e h e a r i n g examiner's o r d e r d e a l i n g w i t h t h e payments made i n excess of t h e 26 week s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n . At t h e time of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g t h e employer, f o r t h e f i r s t time, r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of t h e temporary p a r t i a l award of $459.28 under s e c t i o n 92-703, R . C.PI. 1947. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e f u s e d t o c o n s i d e r o r r u l e on t h i s m a t t e r , due t o c l a i m a n t ' s t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n p o i n t i n g out t h e employer's f a i l u r e t o c r o s s appeal from t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' so r d e r r e garding t h i s issue. 92-829, R.C.M. appeal. 1947. See: Rule 2 9 ( d ) , 1i.R.App.Civ.P. and s e c t i o n W f i n d no reason t o d i s t u r b t h i s r u l i n g on e Second, t h e employer contends t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c t e d improperly, i n t h a t i t s a c t i o n s were beyond t h e scope of review s t a t u t o r i l y imposed upon a d i s t r i c t c o u r t which f u n c t i o n s a t t h e appellate level. W agree. e This Court on numerous o c c a s i o n s has r u l e d c o n c l u s i v e l y d i s p o s i n g of t h i s q u e s t i o n . The f u n c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n a p p e a l s from t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n i s t o examine t h e D i v i s i o n ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conc l u s i o n s of law. These f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e presumed t o b e c o r r e c t and a r e n o t r e v e r s i b l e i f supported by c r e d i b l e evidence. Under s e c t i o n 92-834, R.C.M. 1947, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t must d e t e r - mine : * "Jc + : whether o r n o t , t h e board r e g u l a r l y pursued i t s a u t h o r i t y and whether o r n o t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e board ought t o be s u s t a i n e d , and whether o r n o t such f i n d i n g s a r e r e a s o n a b l e under a l l t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e . 11 See: Hurlbut v. V o l l s t e d t Kerr Company, P.2d 344, 32 St.Rep. M nt o 752, 755; B i r n i e v. U . S . . , 538 Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39, 328 P.2d 133. Th.e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment i n t h e i n s t a n t m a t t e r p r e s e n t an unusual s i t u a tion. N r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and award made o by t h e blorkmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n . Thus i t makes no a t t e m p t t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s i n law o r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t based on i n s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence. The r e s u l t i s a completely new s e t of f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law which t o t a l l y i g n o r e t h e proceedings taken a t t h e administrative l e v e l . T h i s a c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t seems a p p a r e n t l y t o b e based on two assumptions: 1 ) That t h e D i v i s i o n f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r c l a i m a n t ' s f u n c t i o n a l impairment i n terms of t h e d i s a b i l i t y , t h e r e b y d e p r i v i n g him of an award based on h i s f u t u r e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y ; and 2) That under t h e a u t h o r i t y of Jones v. C l a r i d g e , 145 Mont. 326, 400 P.2d 888, claimant was e n t i t l e d t o an award which, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , takes t h a t factor i n t o consideration. Thus t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n e f f e c t , e x e r c i s e d i t s assumed d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r e a where t h e D i v i s i o n a d m i t t e d l y r e f u s e d t o a c t . I n Jones t h i s Court i n t h e s p i r i t of l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and under I1 a given s e t of circumstances" h e l d t h a t an award f o r l o s s of p r o s p e c t i v e f u t u r e e a r n i n g s r e s u l t i n g from permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y may be proper under s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M. 1947. However, an examination of what t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s might b e , o r t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , i s a determinat i o n we need n o t make. S e c t i o n 92-834, R.C.M. 1947, a l l o w s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o amend, modify, o r r e v e r s e t h e a c t i o n s of t h e workmen's Compens a t i o n D i v i s i o n o n l y i f i t finds t h o s e a c t i o n s unsupported by c r e d i b l e evidence o r unreasonable under a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . Here, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t modified t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' so r d e r on one hand, w h i l e s p e c i f i c a l l y a d o p t i n g c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g s and Thus t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment was c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e o t h e r . i n c o n s i s t e n t and l e g a l l y improper i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e s t a t u t e i n t h a t a f t e r awarding t h e s t a t u t o r y b e n e f i t f o r f u n c t i o n a l i m pairment i t g r a n t e d an a d d i t i o n a l amount f o r l o s s of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y n o t a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . Here, t h e f a c t s do n o t s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . 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 . The o r d e r of t h e ~ o r k m e n ' sCompensation D i v i s i o n upon r e h e a r i n g i s reinstated. , I I i I 1 Justices

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.