LEWIS v ANACONDA COMPANY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12852 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 REX F: TXWIS , P l a i n t i f f and C l a i m a n t , ANACONDA COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t J. Boyd, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For P l a i n t i f f : S c a n l o n and Connors, Anaconda, Montana J a c k M. S c a n l o n a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana F o r Respondent: Henningsen, P u r c e l l and Genzberger, B u t t e , Montana Rex F. Henningsen a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: Decided : November 6 , 1975 DEC 18 1975 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. T h i s a p p e a l o r i g i n a t e s from an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t which occurred on December 7, 1960. P l a i n t i f f Rex K. Lewis was a t t h a t time an employee o f defendant Anaconda Company. While performing h i s d u t i e s a s a boilermaker, he was i n j u r e d t o t h e e x t e n t of a f r a c t u r e d l e f t w r i s t and a f r a c t u r e of b o t h n a s a l bones. He was awarded $229.44 i n temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s pursuant t o s e c t i o n 92-701, R.C.M. 1947. O March 27, 1961, a p e t i t i o n f o r n lump sum s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e amount of $1,825 was approved by t h e I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board b u t Lewis r e c e i v e d no p a r t o f t h i s award. Over t e n y e a r s l a t e r , an i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t t h i s p e t i t i o n had been forged by a c l a i m s manager of t h e Anaconda Company. An a c t i o n on ~ e w i s 'b e h a l f was t h e r e a f t e r commenced contending t h a t h i s i n j u r i e s e n t i t l e d him t o t h a t lump sum s e t t l e m e n t , and t h a t t h e a l l e g e d l y f r a u d u l e n t a c t i o n s of t h e Anaconda company's agent had e f f e c t i v e l y deprived him o f t h a t award. The a c t i o n was dismissed by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n Deer Lodge County f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f could be granted. That d e c i s i o n was appealed t o t h i s Court. W e a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and r u l e d t h a t t h e forged documents were n o t , by themselves, s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a r i g h t t o r e l i e f and t h i s Court had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n t i l t h e proper a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedures were exhausted i n proceedings b e f o r e t h e I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board. Lewis v. The Anaconda Company, 160 Mont. 478, 503 P.2d 535. Lewis then p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workmen's Compensation Division f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s c a s e and h e a r i n g was h e l d on A p r i l 17,1973. I t s d e c i s i o n was a d v e r s e t o Lewis. He was g r a n t e d a r e h e a r i n g , which a l s o r e s u l t e d i n an unfavorable r u l i n g . t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Deer Lodge County. A a p p e a l was taken n O August 12, 1974, n judgment was e n t e r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y s u s t a i n i n g t h e f i n d i n g s and conclu- s i o n s of t h e workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n and denying t h e appeal i n i t s e n t i r e t y . I n t h e more than t e n year i n t e r i m between t h e time t h a t ~ e w i s ' si n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t occurred and t h e time t h a t h i s c a s e was reopened b e f o r e t h e workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n , Lewis engaged i n a number of d i f f e r e n t occupations. Approximately two months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t he r e t u r n e d t o t h e Anaconda Company a s a boilermaker, where he was on r e s t r i c t i v e duty i n t h e welding shop. T h i s employment was v o l u n t a r i l y terminated by Lewis n i n e months l a t e r , a l l e g e d l y because of t h e r e s i d u a l e f f e c t s o f h i s injuries. Lewis then l e a s e d a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n and was s e l f - employed i n t h e y e a r 1962. This l e a s e was terminated i n t h e l a t t e r p a r t of 1962, and f o r t h e n e x t seven y e a r s Lewis h e l d a number of d i f f e r e n t jobs i n v a r i o u s s t a t e s . O January 1, 1969, n Lewis became a permanent member of t h e Anaconda p o l i c e department. Two y e a r s l a t e r he s u f f e r e d a n o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t i n t h e course of h i s employment a s a p o l i c e off.i?w which r e s u l t e d i n t h e f r a c t u r e of h i s r i g h t w r i s t . He was awarded a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t f o r permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y i n t h e amount of $3500. Lewis' a p p e a l t o t h i s Court i s based p r i m a r i l y on t h e premise t h a t t h e Workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n a c t e d i n t o t a l d i s r e g a r d of uncontm-d c r e d i b l e evidence i n denying h i s c l a i m f o r r e l i e f and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n s u s t a i n i n g such a c t i o n . Lewis p o i n t s o u t t h a t under Montana's l e g i s l a t i v e scheme an i n j u r e d workman may e l e c t t o proceed under e i t h e r of two s t a t u t o r y s e c t i o n s i n o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h h i s r i g h t t o compensation. Under s e c t i o n 92-703, R.C.M. 1947, t h e c l a i m a n t ' s r i g h t t o r e c o v e r depends upon h i s a b i l i t y t o demonstrate an a c t u a l l o s s of e a r n i n g s and t h e number of persons dependent upon him. recovery under s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M. But, 1947, i s based on a s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y schedule, and proof of an a c t u a l l o s s of e a r n i n g s i s n o t required. S p i e t h v. S t u a r t , 130 Mont. 216, 299 P.2d 106. Thus, under one s e c t i o n t h e c l a i m a n t i s compensated f o r h i s a c t u a l l o s s of wages, w h i l e t h e o t h e r provides t h e c l a i m a n t w i t h an indemnity f o r t h e l o s s of p o s s i b l e f u t u r e e a r n i n g s i n an amount determined by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . Jones v. G l a c i e r General Assurance Co., 145 Mont. 326, 400 P.2d 888. The conclusion o f t h e workmen's Compensation D i v i s i o n was t h a t Lewis f a i l e d t o demonstrate any permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t i n g from h i s 1960 i n j u r y , and he was t h e r e f o r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r under e i t h e r of t h e above p r o v i s i o n s . s e c t i o n 92-703, R.C.M. With r e s p e c t t o 1947, t h e Division placed p a r t i c u l a r em- p h a s i s on s e v e r a l o f i t s numerous f i n d i n g s of f a c t : 1 ) t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t had v o l u n t a r i l y terminated h i s employment w i t h t h e company i n o r d e r t o o p e r a t e h i s s e r v i c e s t a t i o n ; 2) t h a t no evidence was o f f e r e d r e g a r d i n g t h e amount o f c l a i m a n t ' s e a r n i n g s i n t h e y e a r s between 1963 and 1968; and 3) t h a t claimant has been s t e a d i l y employed a s a p o l i c e o f f i c e r s i n c e 1969. The D i v i s i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y recognized t h e e x i s t e n c e of some evidence t e n d i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Lewis had indeed s u f f e r e d some l o s s of e a r n i n g over t h e years. But, i n t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sview, Lewis simply f a i l e d t o e s t a b - l i s h by a preponderance of c r e d i b l e evidence t h a t t h i s l o s s of e a r n i n g s o r e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y was a r e s u l t of t h e i n d u s t r i a l accident. I n support of i t s d e n i a l of r e l i e f under s e c t i o n 92-709, R.C.M. 1947, t h e D i v i s i o n o f f e r e d t h e s e f i n d i n g s of f a c t a s pro- mulgated by t h e h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r i n t h e May 23, 1973, h e a r i n g : "21. That t h e r e i s no c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e f i l e o r t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e claimant e v e r sought o r received medical treatment f o r t h e i n j u r y t o h i s l e f t w r i s t from e a r l y 1961 u n t i l a t t h e r e q u e s t of h i s a t t o r n e y he saw D r . George E. Trobough on March 11, 1972, more than eleven y e a r s a f t e r h i s a c c i d e n t , and f u r t h e r , t h e r e i s no c r e d i b l e evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e claimant e v e r complained of any permanent p h y s i c a l disablement r e s u l t i n g from t h a t i n j u r y d u r i n g t h e t e n o r eleven y e a r s following t h e i nj u r y . "22. That D r . George E. Trobough t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he saw t h e claimant more than eleven y e a r s a f t e r t h e i n j u r y , t h e claimant was s u f f e r i n g from a twentyf i v e p e r c e n t permanent r e s i d u a l d i s a b i l i t y t o t h e body a s a whole. That t h e c l a i m a n t was examined on March 26, "23. 1973, by D r . Charles E. Buehler, B u t t e , Montana, who r e p o r t e d t h a t he could 'find no p h y s i c a l a b n o r m a l i t i e s w i t h t h i s man's l e f t w r i s t t o warrant any permanent d i s a b i l i t y from t h i s a c c i d e n t . I 11 Under t h e s e f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h e workmen's Compensation Division t o have r e g u l a r l y pursued i t s a u t h o r i t y , and i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t were r e a s o n a b l e under t h e c i r cumstances. It was t h e r e f o r e incumbent upon t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o s u s t a i n t h o s e f i n d i n g s and t h e r e s u l t i n g c o n c l u s i o n s of law. S e c t i o n 92-834, R.C.M. Mon t . , 1947; DeLeary v. Anaconda Aluminum Co., 541 P.2d 788, 32 St.Rep. Kerr Co. , v. U.S. Gypsum Co., Mon t . , - 1041; Hurlbut v. V o l l s t e d t 538 P.2d 344, 32 S t . Rep. 752; B i r n i e 134 Mont. 39, 328 P.2d 133. Here we a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a b a s i c c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence. I n a c t i o n s under t h e workmen's Compensation Act, t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t must s u s t a i n Division a c t i o n i f t h e evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e f i n d i n g s , even though some e v i d e n t i a r y c o n f l i c t may exist. Dean v. Anaconda Co., 135 Mont. 1 3 , 335 P.2d 854. Once promulgated, t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e D i v i s i o n become t h e e q u i v a l e n t of a j u r y v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g s of a judge and i t s a c t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e preponderance of t h e evidence i s c l e a r l y t o the contrary. 524, 156 P.2d 838. Wieri v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 116 Mont. The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e h a s remained unchanged s i n c e i t s e x p l i c a t i o n i n Cartwright v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board, 115 Mont. 596, 599, 147 P.2d 909: 11Our f u n c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s t o determine whether o r n o t t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . A s can be immediately a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e foregoing summary of t h e evidence, t h e r e i s a complete t e s t i m o n i a l c o n f l i c t between t h e p a r t i e s . I n such a s i t u a t i o n t h e i s s u e becomes one of c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e w i t n e s s e s which i s and must be concluded by t h e I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board which had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe t h e w i t n e s s e s a s t h e y t e s t i f i e d 9: 9 : 9:. " Lewis simply provides us with no legal basis for upsetting the factual conclusions of the workmen's Compensation Division or the district court. Accordingly, those decisions must be affirmed. Lewis also urges us to decide a collateral constitutional issue, a claim which extends to the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States and Montana Constitutions. He argues that the actions of the hearing officers of the workmen's Compensation Division and the Anaconda Company in arbitrarily and capriciously applying a double standard in administering the workmen's Compensation Act discriminates against him by depriving him of a benefit he is entitled to, thus violating his constitutional rights of equal protection and due process. The question is presented for review for the first time to this Court. untimely, and therefore cannot be considered on appeal. It is Britt v. Cotter Butte Mines, 108 Mont. 174, 176, 89 P.2d 266; State ex rel. Anderson v. State Board of Equalization, 133 Mont. 8, 19, 319 P. 2d 221. Lewis cites In re lark's Estate, 105 Mont. 401, 74 P.2d 401, as authority for the proposition that constitutional issues may, under certain circumstances, be raised for the first time on appeal. In Clark the Court specifically invited the parties to raise the particular constitutional question involved, and in that context created the exception. That exception is clearly not applicable to the instant case, where no such invitation was extended. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Justice We Concur: Chief Justice $429 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.