PINION v H C SMITH CONSTRUCTION C
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-65 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 LESTER E. PINION, Claimant and Respondent, -vsH. C. SlMITH CONSTRUCTION CO., Employer, and ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable William E. Hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Harris and Grant, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Tom L. Lewis, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided : Filed : AUGf-:;- $334 June 25, 1980 AU G 6 - 1980 Mr. 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 C o u r t . The employer and i n s u r e r b r i n g t h i s a p p e a l from a n o r d e r of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t upholding a d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation D i v i s i o n which g r a n t e d c l a i m a n t a w a i v e r of t h e one-year p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g a c l a i m f o r compensation under s e c t i o n 39-71-601(2), MCA. The i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s based s o l e l y on t e s t i m o n y of c l a i m a n t and h i s w i f e b e f o r e t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e D i v i s i o n of Workers' Compensation. Claimant L e s t e r E. Pinion, employed a s a n i r o n worker by H. C. Smith C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, w a s i n j u r e d on t h e job a t t h e end of h i s s h i f t on May 31, 1978, when he s t e p p e d i n t o a h o l e h u r t i n g h i s knee and back. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t he o r a l l y r e p o r t e d i t t o h i s s u p e r v i s o r s , who on J u n e 2 , 1978, f i l e d a w r i t t e n r e p o r t on a form s u p p l i e d by a p p e l l a n t i n s u r a n c e company, detailing the accident. Although h i s knee and back w e r e s o r e , c l a i m a n t c o n t i n u e d t o work f o r H . C . Smith C o n s t r u c t i o n f o r two months u n t i l J u l y 31, 1978, when he q u i t and took a s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n w i t h a n o t h e r company on a n out-of-state job which l a s t e d e l e v e n months, During t h a t t h i r t e e n - m o n t h p e r i o d c l a i m a n t and h i s w i f e t r e a t e d t h e i n j u r y b u t d i d n o t see a d o c t o r o r f i l e a compensation c l a i m b e c a u s e t h e y t h o u g h t t h e i n j u r y would go away, he c o n d i t i o n p r o g r e s s i v e l y worsened, and c l a i m a n t w a s compelled t o s e e k m e d i c a l a s s i s t a n c e when h e r e t u r n e d t o Montana. I n August 1979 c l a i m a n t was examined by a n o r t h o p e d i c s u r geon who recommended a knee o p e r a t i o n , which h a s s i n c e been performed. P i n i o n , u n a b l e t o e a r n wages, f i l e d a c l a i m w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation D i v i s i o n on September 1 7 , 1979. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e o r d e r of t h e Workers' Compensation D i v i s i o n waiving t h e one-year s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s f o r f i l i n g a c l a i m f o r compensation, a s a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 39-71-601(2), MCA, i s s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. S e c t i o n 39-71-601 ( 2 ) , MCA, states: "The d i v i s i o n may, upon a r e a s o n a b l e showing by t h e c l a i m a n t of l a c k of knowledge of d i s a b i l i t y , waive t h e t i m e r e q u i r e m e n t up t o a n a d d i t i o n a l 24 months. " I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 39-71-104, MCA, t h e Workers' Compensation A c t h a s always been l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n favor of t h e i n j u r e d claimant. 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 , 530 P.2d 433; S t a t e e x r e l . Romero v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of E i g h t h J . D . ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 358, 513 P. 2d 265; N e s s v. Diamond A s p h a l t Company (1964) , 143 Mont. 560, 393 P.2d 43. Gas, I n c . (1977), T h i s C o u r t i n W i l l i a m s v . Wellman-Power - Mont. , & 571 P.2d 90, 34 St.Rep. 1232, e x t e n d e d t h e r u l e of l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e above-mentioned 1973 amendment. I n Dumont v . Wickens Bros. Const. Co. (1979), - Mont. , - 598 P.2d 1099, 1106, 36 St.Rep. 1471, w e h e l d t h a t t h e s c o p e of r e v i e w of a d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t upon a p p e a l h a s been s t a t e d many t i m e s . The r u l e i s w e l l summarized i n J e n s e n v . Zook Bros. C o n s t . Co. - Mont. , 582 P.2d 1191, 1193, 35 St.Rep. (1978), 1066, 1068, i n t h e f o l l o w i n g language: "The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e i n d e t e r mining t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers' Compens a t i o n C o u r t h a s been s t a t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g language: "'Our f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o supp 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 c o u r t . W c a n n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment e f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s t o t h e w e i g h t of e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . Where 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 f i n d i n g s of t h e Workers ' Compensation C o u r t , t h i s Court cannot overturn t h e d e c i s i o n . ' S t e f f e s v . 93 L e a s i n g Co., I n c . (U.S.F.&G) ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 580 P.2d 450, 452, 35 St.Rep. 816, 818." T h e r e a l s o e x i s t s a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s f o r 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 of t h e Workers' Comp e n s a t i o n D i v i s i o n , i f s u p p o r t e d by c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e , and t h e burden of proof i s upon t h e p a r t y a t t a c k i n g them t o show t h a t they w e r e c l e a r l y erroneous. Sugar Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. E r h a r t v. G r e a t Western 375, 546 P.2d 1055; P a r t o l l v . ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 122 Mont. 305, 203 P.2d There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t b o t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r and t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h a t , " t h e r e h a s been a r e a s o n a b l e showing by t h e c l a i m a n t of l a c k of knowledge of d i s a b i l i t y . " A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t m e t i t s burden of p r o o f , and t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r , a s a f f i r m e d by t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t , i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: % ~ \ ( ! M ~ - Q Q Q 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.
