STRANDBERG v REBER COMPANY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14223 I N THE S P E 4 CCUR!I' O THE STATE O MONTANA U R CE F F 1978 Claimant and Respondent, THE REBER COMPANY, r n l o y e r , and AFGOIWVT INSURANCE CaMPANY, Defendant and Appllant. Appeal from: hbrkers' Canpensation Court Hon. William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Harris, Jackson & W d o , Helena, Pbntana John Grant argued, Helena, Pbntana For Respondent: Keller, Reynolds a d Drake, Helena, Wntana r Paul T. Keller argued, Helena, Wntana Sutanitted: Decided : Filed : Novemkr 1 4 1978 NOV 2 7 1 5 98 Mr. ~ustice Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . 2 On ~ u l y 4 , 1973, w h i l e employed a s a plumber by The ~eber Company, Howard S t r a n d b e r g f e l l from a l a d d e r and fractured h i s l e f t hip. Argonaut I n s u r a n c e Company, Reber Company's P l a n 2 w o r k e r s ' compensation c a r r i e r , p a i d S t r a n d b e r g temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y . S t r a n d b e r g , 53 y e a r s o l d a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t , a t t e m p t e d t o r e t u r n t o work f o r Reber i n O c t o b e r , 1974, b u t found he w a s u n a b l e t o keep up a s a plumber, p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e of p a i n and l a c k of m o b i l i t y . and one-half A f t e r a p e r i o d of two d a y s , h e had t o t e r m i n a t e h i s employment. S i n c e t h a t t i m e he h a s t r i e d v a r i o u s j o b s s u c h a s t r u c k d r i v i n g , i r r i g a t i n g and f e n c i n g b u t h a s been u n a b l e t o f i n d work i n v o l v i n g s i t t i n g o r s t a n d i n g t h a t he c o u l d d o f o r any l e n g t h of time without experiencing pain. I n 1977 S t r a n d b e r g began t o complain of back problems. A t t h i s p o i n t h e p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g o n h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r permanent t o t a l d i s ability. The c a s e was r e f e r r e d t o a h e a r i n g s examiner. S t r a n d b e r g was s u b s e q u e n t l y examined by two o r t h o p e d i c s p e c i a l i s t s who t e s t i f i e d , t h a t b e c a u s e of t h e manner i n which h i s h i p had h e a l e d , S t r a n d b e r g had developed a Trendelenburg's g a i t , described a s a " l i s t i n g g a i t over t h e h i p , " h i s l e f t l e g had s h o r t e n e d m e a s u r a b l y , and h e walked w i t h a limp. These a f t e r e f f e c t s of t h e f r a c t u r e d h i p had i n t u r n aggravated a p r e e x i s t i n g condition i n Strandberg's s p i n e known a s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s , i n which o n e v e r t e b r a i s n o t developed, r e s u l t i n g i n a n i n a b i l i t y f o r S t r a n d b e r g t o be on h i s f e e t o r do heavy work f o r any l e n g t h o f t i m e . While s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s i s a c h r o n i c c o n d i t i o n which may become symptomatic w i t h a g e , b o t h examining p h y s i c i a n s t e s t i f i e d t h e y f e l t S t r a n d b e r g ' s l i m p , as a r e s u l t of h i s f r a c t u r e d h i p , a c c e l e r a t e d and a g g r a v a t e d t h e p r e e x i s t i n g condition. On t h e b a s i s o f t h i s u n d i s p u t e d t e s t i m o n y t h e h e a r i n g s examiner made 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 f a v o r a b l e t o Strandberg. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and d e n i e d A r g o n a u t ' s p e t i t ion f o r a rehearing. From t h e judgment and d e n i a l of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a r e h e a r i n g , Argonaut a p p e a l s . The i s s u e w e a r e asked t o d e c i d e i s whether a p e r s o n i n j u r e d i n a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t i s e n t i t l e d t o compensat i o n when a n i n j u r y t o one p a r t of h i s body r e s u l t s i n t h e a g g r a v a t i o n of a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i n a n o t h e r p a r t of t h e body. W e h o l d t h a t h e i s and a f f i r m t h e Workers' Com- pensation Court. W e have l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h e d o c t r i n e i n Montana t h a t a n employee s u f f e r i n g from a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i s n o t d e n i e d compensation i f t h e d i s a b i l i t y was a g g r a v a t e d o r a c c e l e r a t e d by a n i n d u s t r i a l i n j u r y . s t r u c t i o n Co. 35 St.Rep. (1978), Mont. C l a r k v . H i l d e Con- - 576 P.2d 1112, 1 1 1 4 , , 353, 355; Bond v. S t . Regis P a p e r Co. Mont. , 571 P.2d 372, 374, 34 St.Rep. (1977), 1237, 1240; Rumsey v . C a r d i n a l P e t r o l e u m ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 1 7 , 28, 530 P.2d 433, 439. The r u l e i s t h a t when p r e e x i s t i n g d i s e a s e s a r e a g g r a v a t e d by a n i n j u r y and d i s a b i l i t i e s r e s u l t , s u c h d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e t o be t r e a t e d and c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e r e s u l t of t h e i n j u r y . Gaffney v . I n d u s t r i a l A c c i d e n t Board ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 129 Mont. 394, 403, 287 P.2d 256, 260. A p p e l l a n t would now have u s l i m i t t h i s d o c t r i n e t o cases where t h e p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n a f f e c t e d o n l y t h a t p a r t of t h e body s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j u r e d i n t h e i n d u s t r i a l accident. T h i s we d e c l i n e t o do. Such a h o l d i n g would f o r c e u s i n t o a narrow and t e c h n i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation s t a t u t e s and t h u s d e f e a t t h e l i b e r a l and humane i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e b e n e f i t and p r o t e c t i o n of t h e i n j u r e d worker. Anaconda Co. (1978), Mont. , 581 P.2d Garland v . 431, 433, 35 S t - R e p . 923, 926; Rumsey v . C a r d i n a l P e t r o l e u m , s u p r a , 166 Mont. a t 26, 530 P.2d a t 438; Levo v. General-Shea-Morrison ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 128 Mont. 570, 571, 280 P.2d 1086, 1087. N e i t h e r do p r e v i o u s c a s e s s u g g e s t s u c h a l i m i t e d doctrine. W e a l l o w e d r e c o v e r y i n Gaffney where a f a l l a g g r a - vated p r e e x i s t i n g P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e and c e r e b r a l a r t e r i a l s c l e r o s i s b o t h o f which, l i k e S t r a n d b e r g ' s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s , a r e p r o g r e s s i v e d i s e a s e s of a d e g e n e r a t i v e n a t u r e . In Weakley v . Cook ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 126 Mont. 332, 249 P.2d 926, a p r e e x i s t i n g h e a r t c o n d i t i o n was a g g r a v a t e d when t h e c l a i m a n t f e l l backwards. I n M o f f e t t v . Bozeman Canning Co. (1933), 95 Mont. 347, 26 P.2d 973, a n unexpected back s t r a i n t r i g g e r e d p r e e x i s t i n g P a r k i n s o n ' s d i s e a s e of t h e nervous system. I n b o t h c a s e s compensation was a l l o w e d . S e e a l s o t h e r e c e n t c a s e of C l o s e v . S t . Regis Paper Co. (19771, , Mont. 573 P.2d 1 6 3 , 34 St.Rep. 1528, where a blow t o t h e c l a i m a n t ' s head a g g r a v a t e d a dormant c o n d i t i o n i n h e r neck. This i s analogous t o t h e i n j u r y t o S t r a n d b e r g ' s h i p a g g r a v a t i n g a dormant c o n d i t i o n i n h i s lower back. W e have a l s o h e l d t h a t where a n i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t c a u s e s p r e e x i s t i n g p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems t o f l a r e up t h e c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o compensation. Empire S t e e l Mfg. Co. 988, 34 St.Rep. (19771, 1112, 1114. Schumacher v . - Mont. - 574 P.2d 987, , Clearly i n these cases there is no c o n n e c t i o n between t h e s i t e of t h e s u b s e q u e n t i n j u r y and t h e p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n and no s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e r e must be s u c h a p h y s i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . A l l t h a t i s necessary i s t h a t t h e accident aggravate o r accelerate the preexisting disease o r disability. Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e c l a i m a n t must "produce s u f f i c i e n t evidence, d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l t o cause i n t h e u n p r e j u d i c e d mind a c o n v i c t i o n t h a t s u c h w a s t h e f a c t . " Gaffney, 129 Mont. a t 404-05, 287 P.2d a t 261. Proof t h a t i t was m e d i c a l l y p o s s i b l e f o r an i n d u s t r i a l a c c i d e n t t o a g g r a v a t e a p r e e x i s t i n g c o n d i t i o n i s a c c e p t a b l e proof of disability. , - 583 P.2d V i e t s v. Sweet G r a s s County ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1070, 1072, 35 St.Rep. 1364, 1366-67. Mont . Here, S t r a n d b e r g m e t t h i s burden of proof a s shown i n p a r t by t h i s e x c e r p t from t h e d e p o s i t i o n of one of t h e examining p h y s i c i a n s , D r . Harris Hanson: "Q. And how a b o u t h i s s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s i n h i s back. Was i t a f f e c t e d by t h i s i n j u r y ? A. On t h e b a s i s o f what I found on t h e X-rays, I t h i n k t h i s was a p r e e x i s t i n g problem, b u t w i t h h i s s h o r t e n i n g and h i s l i m p , t h e s p o n d y l o l i s t h e s i s and t h e d e g e n e r a t i v e changes a b o u t h i s back p r o b a b l y have been a f f e c t e d by i t y e t . "Q. They have been a g g r a v a t e d , would you s a y ? A. Yes." The d e p o s i t i o n of D r . R o b e r t Seim, t h e examining d o c t o r f o r Argonaut, i s t o t h e same e f f e c t . Likewise, undisputed e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t S t r a n d b e r g was u n a b l e t o r e t u r n t o h i s former o c c u p a t i o n o r t o perform any j o b f o r more t h a n a c o u p l e of h o u r s a t any t i m e . On q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d , o u r f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g d e c i s i o n s of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i s l i m i t e d t o a s c e r t a i n i n g whether s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e e x i s t s t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h a t court. I f 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 court's findings, we cannot overturn the decision. v. Zook Bros. Construction Co. (1978), P.2d 1191, 1193, 35 St.Rep. 1066, 1068. Jensen Mont. , 582 On the record before us we find the requisite substantial evidence to support the finding of the Workers' Compensation Court that Strandberg's industrial accident to his hip aggravated his preexisting spinal condition resulting in permanent total disability. Section 92-713, R.C.M. 1947, authorizes the reopening and proper adjustment of a workers' compensation case "[ilf aggravation ... . .. takes place or [is] discovered after compensation [is] terminated in any case." This language indicates that the legislature recognized the possibility that aggravation of an injury may occur after the normal period of compensation has expired, as occurred here. The Workerst Compensation Court acted correctly under the authorization of this statute. The judgment of the Workerst Compensation Court is affirmed. We Concur: ?LLd Gk!&4yJLP Chief Justice

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.