LEARY v ANACONDA CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13436 IN THE SUPRElIE COURT OF T l STATE OF MONTANA IE 1978 WILLIAM J. LEARY, Claimant and Appellant, THE ANACONDA COPfGANY, Employer, and THE ANACONDA COMPANY, Insurer and Respondent. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Greg J. Skakles argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Stephen M. Williams argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: January 30, 1978 FEB Decided. 2 i 11i'd : 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 : Claimant William J. Leary s u f f e r e d a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n a t approximately 12:30 p.m., December 11, 1974. A t t h e time of t h e a t t a c k , claimant was employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda Company a t i t s p l a n t i n Anaconda, Montana. Claimant submitted a workers' compensation claim s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r ; i t was denied by h i s employer. O November 18, 1975, claimant n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r hearing with t h e Workers' Compensation Division requesting a determination of t h e compensability of t h e claim. He f u r t h e r requested c o s t s , a t t o r n e y f e e s , and t h e penalty f o r t h e employer's r e f u s a l t o pay compensation pres c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 92-849, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n was held on January 21, 1976, i n t h e Workers' Compensation Court. On May 24, 1976, t h e Court entered i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law denying t h e claim i n i t s e n t i r e t y , on t h e b a s i s t h a t claimant f a i l e d t o demonstrate h i s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from unusual s t r a i n while engaged i n work a c t i v i t y . Claimant appeals. A t t h e time of h i s h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant was 53 years of age and had been employed a s an e l e c t r i c i a n by t h e Anaconda Company f o r 20 years. For a period of four t o f i v e years p r i o r t o t h e h e a r t a t t a c k , claimant worked a job known a s t h e "swing job1'. Each week claimant worked two days a t t h e smelter s t a c k s u b s t a t i o n connecting and disconnecting e l e c t r i c a l switches; two days were spent a t t h e main s u b s t a t i o n taking meter readings and compiling r e p o r t s , and one day he worked i n p l a n t maintenance. While engaged i n p l a n t maintenace, claimant was a v a i l a b l e f o r work wherever an e l e c t r i c i a n was needed a t t h e smelter. O December 11, 1974, while working p l a n t maintenance, n claimant and h i s p a r t n e r , Thomas Brebrick, were s e n t t o t h e o l d phosphate p l a n t t o disconnect two 2,300 v o l t switches. The o l d in prior phosphate p l a n t had not beenloperation f o r some time/ t o December 11, 1974, and was unheated. The temperature i n the b u i l d i n g was approximately 30' t o 35' F. and claimant was wearing heavy clothing. I n o r d e r t o reach t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick climbed t h r e e t o four f l i g h t s of s t a i r s . I n t h e process of obtaining l i g h t i n g equipment and a s c e r t a i n i n g t h a t t h e power was shut down p r i o r t o disconnection of t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick ascended and descended t h e s t a i r s s e v e r a l times. The switches were on wheels enabling them t o be moved. To move t h e switches, claimant and Brebrick l i f t e d them over pieces of angle i r o n fastened t o t h e f r o n t of t h e wheels. Estimates of t h e weight of t h e switches ranged from 100 t o 300 pounds, t o a maximum of 800 pounds. The work a t t h e phosphate p l a n t was completed s h o r t l y a f t e r 1 1 : O O a.m. time. Claimant experienced no ill f e e l i n g a t t h i s Claimant and Brebrick returned t o t h e foundry with t h e i r equipment and prepared f o r lunch. A t approximately 12:30 p.m., a f t e r f i n i s h i n g lunch, claimant began t o experience a s e n s a t i o n of i n a b i l i t y t o r e l a x and, l a t e r , i n d i g e s t i o n and pressure on h i s arms. Claimant returned t o t h e job, b u t r e s t e d u n t i l h i s s h i f t ended a t 3:00 p.m. f o r t h e evening. Claimant then drove home and r e t i r e d The following morning, claimant was examined by D r . Huffman a t Community Hospital i n Anaconda. The c o n d i t i o n was diagnosed a s a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n , and claimant was irnmedia t e l y h o s p i t a l i z e d . fourteen days. Claimant remained i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r D r . Huffman t r e a t e d claimant u n t i l March 17, 1975, when claimant was r e l e a s e d t o r e t u r n t o work. Following h i s r e l e a s e , claimant submitted h i s claim f o r compensation. This a c t i o n ensued from t h e d e n i a l of t h a t claim. Claimant r a i s e s s e v e r a l i s s u e s on appeal. Critical t o the r e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case i s t h e determination of whether c l a i m a n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k r e s u l t e d from work r e l a t e d s t r e s s o r s t r a i n . 92-418(1), R.C.M. Section 1947. I n i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, t h e workers' Compensation Court found: "That according t o medical evidence, t h e h e a r t a t t a c k s u f f e r e d over one and one-half hours a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and a f t e r t h e claimant had e a t e n lunch, t h e work a c t i v i t y i s n o t r e l a t e d t o t h e h e a r t attack.'' The Workers' Compensation Court thereupon concluded, a s a matter of law, t h a t claimant had n o t proved by a preponderance of t h e evidence t h a t t h e job a c t i v i t y was t h e cause of t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The findings and conclusions demonstrate t h a t , i n determining t h e l a c k of c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e Workers' Compensation Court r e l i e d almost exclusively upon a l e t t e r submitted by D r . Walter J . Lewis 111, a Missoula c a r d i o l o g i s t , who examined claimant some two months following t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . The l e t t e r was w r i t t e n primarily a s a response t o c e r t a i n h y p o t h e t i c a l quest i o n s posed t o claimant's physician, D r . Huffman, i n t h e deposition of the l a t t e r . D r . Huffman i n d i c a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n and i n o t h e r documents before t h e workers' Compensation Court, t h a t he found a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e strenuous work a c t i v i t y involved i n climbing numerous f l i g h t s of s t a i r s and l i f t i n g heavy e l e c t r i c a l switches, and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . However, t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l ques- t i o n s posed, although assuming v i r t u a l l y a l l t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t s produced a t t h e subsequent t r i a l , e s t a b l i s h e d no time r e f e r e n c e between t h e work a c t i v i t y and t h e h e a r t a t t a c k . That i s , t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l s r e f e r t o t h e symptoms of t h e a t t a c k occurring " s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y . " D r . Lewis, i n commenting on the h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , i n d i c a t e s the time period elapsing between t h e c e s s a t i o n of work a c t i v i t y and t h e onset of symptoms i s c r i t i c a l . He s t a t e s i f t h e h e a r t a t t a c k occurred within one-half hour of t h e c e s s a t i o n of work, he could s t a t e t h e two were c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d . However, i f t h e h e a r t a t t a c k , a s h e r e , occurred one and one-half hours following t h e completion of t h e a c t i v i t y , they would n o t be c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d . W note i n t h i s regard t h a t n e i t h e r physician t e s t i f i e d a t t h e e January 21 hearing. While t h e findings and conclusions r e f e r t o and appear t o be based upon t h e l e t t e r of D r . Lewis, nowhere i s any r e f e r e n c e made t o t h e medical opinion of D r . Huffman. W a r e unable t o e a s c e r t a i n from t h e findings and conclusions t h e b a s i s f o r o r reasoning behind t h e r e j e c t i o n of such opinion. Upon a thorough review of t h e record, we t h e r e f o r e conclude t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t medical testimony t o support t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e Workers' Compensation Court. The f i n d i n g s and conclusions a r e vacated and t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e Workers' Compensation Court with d i r e c t i o n s t h a t a d d i t i o n a l medical testimony regarding t h e h e a r t a t t a c k be taken. ing ~ k i e f us dice 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.