HURLBUT v VOLLSTEDT CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12929 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1975 HARRY L. HURLBUT.,', Plaintiff, - -vs VOLLSTEDT KERR COMPANY, Employer, and INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : F o r Appellant : Marra and Wenz, Great F a l l s , Montana Joseph R. Marra argued, and Charles R. Johnson argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Richard J. Conklin argued, White Sulphur S p r i n g s , Montana Submitted: May 8, 1975 m 8. 7z g 9 Decided :- 1 . F i l e d : ,IN 2 2 19B M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The D i v i s i o n of Workmen's Compensation of t h e Department of Labor and I n d u s t r y denied t h e Hurlbut. claim of one Harry L. Appeal was t a k e n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Meagher County which r e v e r s e d t h e ~ i v i s i o n s 'h o l d i n g and awarded Hurlbut This $3,696, p l u s b e n e f i t s of $66 per week and medical c o s t s . a p p e a l i s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment. Harry L. H u r l b u t , h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s c l a i m a n t , about 59 y e a r s o l d , had been employed by t h e lumber m i l l of t h e V o l l s t e d t Kerr Company, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Company, of White Sulphur S p r i n g s , Montana, f o r t e n y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e alleged accident. The l a s t e i g h t of t h o s e t e n y e a r s c l a i m a n t was employed a s s u p e r i n t e n d e n t . The Company p o l i c y was n o t t o o p e r a t e t h e m i l l when t h e temperature was t o o c o l d f o r t h e men and t h e machinery, u s u a l l y when t h e temperature was around - 5 O ~ a h r e n h e i t o r below. In the l a t t e r p a r t of December 1972, temperatures i n White Sulphur Springs were a s low a s -30 0 F a h r e n h e i t and caused t h e m i l l t o be s h u t down f o r more t h a n a week. O t h e a f t e r n o o n of January 5 , 1973, t h e n t e m p e r a t u r e r o s e t o around -12' F. and Dick V o l l s t e d t , owner of t h e Company, o r d e r e d c l a i m a n t t o s t a r t up t h e m i l l t h e n e x t day. Claimant p r o t e s t e d t h a t i t was t o o c o l d and they should "play i t by e a r " . N e v e r t h e l e s s , V o l l s t e d t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e m i l l commence o p e r a t i o n t h e n e x t morning. Claimant began c o n t a c t i n g men t o r e p o r t f o r work t h e n e x t day; some by t e l e p h o n e and some p e r s o n a l l y . The n e x t morning, January 6 , 1973, c l a i m a n t a r r i v e d a t t h e m i l l o f f i c e a t about 6:20 a.m. and w a i t e d i n h i s o f f i c e f o r t e l e p h o n e c a l l s from %he employees t o determine how many men would r e p o r t . temperature i n t h e o f f i c e w a s 50 c o a t on. 0 t o 55' The F. and c l a i m a n t had h i s The o u t s i d e temperature was -6O F . , w i t h low wind v e l o c i t y . While s i t t i n g i n t h e o f f i c e c l a i m a n t became d i z z y , h e went o u r s i d e t o s e e i f a l i t t l e f r e s h a i r would h e l p , b u t then became nauseated. He went home and h i s w i f e drove him t o t h e h o s p i t a l where h i s d o c t o r diagnosed t h e problem a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , which simply means t h a t an a r e a of t h e h e a r t muscle d i e s by r e a s o n of t h e o c c u l s i o n of a h e a r t blood v e s s e l supplying t h a t a r e a . This d i a g n o s i s was s u b s e q e u n t l y confirmed by l a b o r a t o r y t e s t s . Z4r. Hurlbut made a p p l i c a t i o n f o r compensation f o r h i s myocardial i n f a r c t i o n (commonly termed a h e a r t a t t a c k ) , t o t h e ~ o r k m e n ' sCompensation D i v i s i o n . H i s c l a i m was denied and sub- s e q u e n t l y he p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i v i s i o n f o r a h e a r i n g . Hearing was h e l d wherein c l a i m a n t and h i s a t t e n d i n g p h y s i c i a n , A l b e r t V. J e l l e n , M.D., gave testimony. The h e a r i n g examiner denied t h e c l a i m on t h e grounds t h a t c l a i m a n t "did n o t i n f a c t s u f f e r an a c c i d e n t a l i n j u r y a r i s i n g o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of h i s employment." Appeal was taken t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t which e n t e r e d judgment f o r c l a i m a n t . Defendants V o l l s t e d t Kerr Company and I n d u s t r i a l Indemnity Company a p p e a l from t h a t judgment. The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e workmen's Compensation ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r were supported by c r e d i b l e evidence and s u b s e q u e n t l y whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was j u s t i f i e d i n r e f e r s i n g t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' sf i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r a f t e r t a k i n g evidence? C l a i m a n t ' s argument a t t h e D i v i s i o n h e a r i n g and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e a r i n g was t h a t t h e lumber m i l l had never b e f o r e been o p e r a t e d i n weather a s c o l d a s i t was t h e morning o f January 6 , 1973. There i s some c o n f l i c t i n r e g a r d t o t h e t e m p e r a t u r e t h a t morning, b u t t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h e temperature was between -SO and -10' Fahrenheit. Claimant m a i n t a i n s t h i s c o n d i t i o n con- s t i t u t e d an "unusual s t r a i n " because i t was a u n i q u e , new, d i f f e r e n t and unusual demand placed upon c l a i m a n t by t h e Company. Any i n j u r y , t o be compensable under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act, must meet t h e d e f i n i t i o n a l requirements of the statute. S e c t i o n 92-418, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s i n j u r y a s II a t a n g i b l e happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e from an unexpected c a u s e , o r unusual s t r a i n , r e s u l t i n g i n e i t h e r external o r i n t e r n a l physical harm, and such p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n a s a r e s u l t therefrom and e x c l u d i n g d i s e a s e n o t t r a c e a b l e t o i n j u r y 9~ a*" * Thus, t h e r e a r e two elements i n t h e s t a t u t e which must be met (1) t h e r e must be a t a n g i b l e happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e , and (2) t h i s must be shown t o be t h e c a u s e of p h y s i c a l harm. Aside from t h e testimony t h a t i t was a few d e g r e e s c o l d e r t h a n normal s t a r t i n g temperature and t h e m i l l had n o t p r e v i o u s l y o p e r a t e d i n t e m p e r a t u r e s t h a t c o l d , t h e r e was no testimony t h i s imposed upon c l a i m a n t any d u t y which was unusual i n k i n d o r amount. The d u t i e s performed by c l a i m a n t on t h e day b e f o r e h i s a t t a c k and on t h e day of t h e a t t a c k , January 6 , 1973, were d u t i e s he had performed f o r t h e previous e i g h t years a s plant superintendent. Simply opening a m i l l on a day c o l d e r t h a n was customary, w i t h no i n o r d i n a t e kind o r amount of work on h i s p a r t , cannot be s a i d t o c o n s t i t u t e happening of a t r a u m a t i c n a t u r e . " I1 a tangible Claimant has f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of proof t h a t he was i n j u r e d , w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e s t a t u t e . F u r t h e r , t h e r e was no proof i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e myocardial i n f a r c t i o n had any c a u s a l connection t o c l a i m a n t ' s employment. C l a i m a n t ' s d o c t o r , D r . J e l l e n , t e s t i f i e d t h e r e a r e two p r i n c i p a l c a u s e s of myocardial i n f a r c t i o n : (1) a r t e r i o s c l e r o s i s , a g r a d u a l l y developing c o n d i t i o n t h a t h a s n o t h i n g t o do w i t h trauma, s t r a i n o r a n x i e t y ; and (2) when a blood c l o t which had p r e v i o u s l y and g r a d u a l l y formed somewhere i n s i d e t h e h e a r t b r e a k s l o o s e and occludes a h e a r t blood v e s s e l . considerable There was discussion regarding p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n c o t h e second cause, t h e blood c l o t , however, t h e d o c t o r t e s t i f i e d : Doctor, can you say w i t h any degree of medical c e r t a i n t y what was t h e cause of M r . ~ u r l b u t ' s myocardial i n f a r c t i o n ? A . No, I am a f r a i d I c o u l d n ' t . "Q. D you know whether o r n o t t h i s c o n d i t i o n o r e s u l t e d from e i t h e r a r t e r i o s c l e r o s i s o r a c l o t t i n g ? A. No, no, I wouldn't be a b l e t o t e l l , t o make any statement i n any of t h e s e d i r e c t i o n s because L don ' t know. I I "Q. Claimant f a i l e d t o c a r r y h i s burden and t h e r e f o r e cannot q u a l i f y under t h e s t a t u t e f o r b e n e f i t s . Nicholson v. Roundup Coal Mining Co., 79 Mont. 358, 257 P. 270; Landeen v. Toole County Refining Co., 85 Mont. 41, 277 P. 615; Woin v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 99 Mont. 163, 43 P.2d 663; Ricks v. Teslow Consolidated, 162 Mont. 469, 512 P.2d 1304. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law of t h e Workmen's Compensation Division a r e presumed t o be c o r r e c t and i f supported by c r e d i b l e evidence must be affirmed. 92-822, R.C.M. 1947; B i r n i e v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 134 Mont. 39, This presumption can b e overcome however. 92-834, R.C.M. Section Section 1947, provides t h a t on an appeal from 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 has a u t h o r i t y t o determine "* 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 b e 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 reasonable under a l l t h e circums t a n c e s of t h e c a s e . I t Section 92-834 a l s o provides t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may, upon good cause s h o ~ m ,admit a d d i t i o n a l evidence. 835, R.C.M. S e c t i o n 92- 1947 and Montana c a s e law holds t h a t i f t h i s a d d i - t i o n a l evidence i s s u b s t a n t i a l , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may be j u s t i f i e d i n r e v e r s i n g t h e Division even though t h e evidence adduced b e f o r e t h e Division c l e a r l y preponderates i n favor of i t s o r d e r . Young v. L i b e r t y Nat. I n s . Co., 138 Mont. 458, 357 P.2d 886; 0 ' ~ e i . lv. I n d u s t r i a l Acc.Bd., 107 Mont. 176, 8 1 P.2d 688. This Court has r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t where t h e a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s heard only on t h e D i v i s i o n ' s c e r t i f i e d r e c o r d o r when t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t permits a d d i t i o n a l evidence t o be introduced and t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence i s n o t important o r adds n o t h i n g new t o t h e c a s e , then t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may n o t r e v e r s e t h e Division u n l e s s t h e evidence c l e a r l y preponderates a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Division. S t o r d a h l v. Rush Imple- ment Co., 148 Mont. 13, 417 P.2d 95; Jones v. air's Cafes, 132 Mont. 13, 445 P.2d 923; McAndrews v. Schwartz, 164 Mont. 402, 523 P.2d 1379, 31 St.Rep. Gas, I n c . , Mon t . 517; B e a t t y v. Wellman Power and P.2d Y , 32 St.Rep. 680. Here, t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence admitted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t shed no new l i g h t on t h e circumstances surrounding t h e a l l e g e d a c c i d e n t a s t o t h e cause of t h e a l l e g e d i n j u r y . With t h e exception of testimony r e l a t i n g t o t h e degree of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y , which was n o t an i s s u e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t , t h e a d d i t i o n a l testimony a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was merely r e p e t i t i v e of t h a t admitted a t t h e Division hearing. i n no way be s a i d t o findings It Such redundant testimony can c l e a r l y preponderate a g a i n s t t h e ~ i v i s i o n ' s . II The judgment o f 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 and t h e o r d e r o f t h e Workmen's Compensation Division i s a f f i r m e d and reinstated. &-/[-Justice W Concur: e ." ", Chief J u s t i c e
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.
