POLICH v WHALEN S O K TIRE WAREHO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-153 IN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F M N A A F OTN 1981 WILLIAM T. POLICH, C l a i m a n t and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsWHALEN'S 0 . K . TIRE WAREHOUSE, Employer, and GLACIER GENERAL ASSURANCE CO., Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: The Workers' Compensation C o u r t , The H o n o r a b l e . W i l l i a m E Hunt, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant : G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn & R o b i n s o n , M i s s o u l a , Montana F o r Respondent: Dowling Law F i r m , H e l e n a , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: SEP 2 5 w- J u n e 1 7 , 1981 SEP 2 5 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r a p p e a l s from a judgment i n t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t f i n d i n g t h e c l a i m a n t t o t a l l y and permanently d i s a b l e d and c o n v e r t i n g h i s f u t u r e biweekly benef i t s i n t o a lump sum payment. Appellant questions the s u f f i - c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t i n s u p p o r t of a lump sum payment and q u e s t i o n s whether c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . W a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e Workers' e Compensation C o u r t . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t f o r review: 1. Whether t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t was ent i t l e d t o a lump sum payment of f u t u r e b e n e f i t s . 2. Whether c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . C l a i m a n t William T . P o l i c h , a l o n g t i m e r e s i d e n t of B u t t e , was 62 y e a r s o l d i n 1980 when t h i s a c t i o n a r o s e . H e had worked most of h i s l i f e a t u n s k i l l e d and p h y s i c a l l y demanding j o b s . On J a n u a r y 2 9 , 1979, w h i l e employed by Whalen's O . K . Tire Warehouse, P o l i c h s u f f e r e d a back i n j u r y which was a c c e p t e d a s compensable by G l a c i e r G e n e r a l Assurance Company. Polich has been r e c e i v i n g biweekly b e n e f i t payments s i n c e t h e d a t e of h i s injury. I n March of 1979, P o l i c h underwent a s u r g i c a l laminectomy t o correct a herniated disc. D e s p i t e t h e s u r g e r y , he c o n t i n u e d t o e x p e r i e n c e p a i n i n h i s lower back, b u t t o c k s and l e g s . The o r t h o p e d i c s u r g e o n , who t r e a t e d P o l i c h , recommends t h a t P o l i c h r e f r a i n from engaging i n any o c c u p a t i o n which would r e q u i r e overhead work, bending, s t o o p i n g , c r a w l i n g , d r i v i n g o r l i f t i n g more t h a n 20 pounds. W i l l i a m P o l i c h owns h i s own house and c a r ; he h a s c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t worth $13,000 and $3,000 i n a s a v i n g s account. H e and h i s w i f e have a combined income of $1,887 p e r month. P o l i c h ' s w i f e works a s a r e c e p t i o n i s t a t t h e Department of Radiology a t S t . James H o s p i t a l i n B u t t e . She h a s b r i t t l e d i a b e t e s , m i g r a i n e headaches, and c i r c u l a t o r y problems which make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r h e r t o c o n t i n u e working. She was 6 2 y e a r s o l d i n 1980, i s e l i g i b l e f o r r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s and d e s i r e s t o r e t i r e . On J u l y 7 , 1980, c l a i m a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t o g r a n t him a lump s m s e t t l e m e n t s o u t h a t he and h i s w i f e c o u l d s e l l t h e i r home and move s o u t h t o a more h o s p i t a b l e c l i m a t e , r e l i e v i n g t h e m s e l v e s of t h e s t r e s s and d i s c o m f o r t c a u s e d them by Montana's more s e v e r e winters. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t P o l i c h e x p e r i e n c e d p a i n when he a t t e m p t e d "even t h e s l i g h t e s t e x e r t i o n . " C l a i m a n t re- q u e s t s t h e lump sum payment f o r h i s p r o j e c t e d move b e c a u s e t h e c o s t of l i v i n g i s c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r i n Phoenix, where t h e P o l i c h s p l a n t o l i v e , and b e c a u s e , due t o t h e d e p r e s s e d economy i n B u t t e , c l a i m a n t c a n n o t e x p e c t t o r e c e i v e more t h a n around $22,000 from t h e s a l e of h i s home i n B u t t e . C l a i m a n t ' s e f f o r t s t o n e g o t i a t e a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t w i t h G l a c i e r General had been u n s u c c e s s f u l . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on October 20, 1980. 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 s u b s e q u e n t l y e n t e r e d d e t e r m i n e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t o t a l l y disabled; (1) t h a t c l a i m a n t i s permanently and ( 2 ) t h a t c l a i m a n t i s a p r u d e n t man, a b l e t o handle h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s ; ( 3 ) t h a t a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t would be i n c l a i m a n t ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s ; (4) that i f the p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t s e t t l e upon t h e amount of t h e lump sum payment, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t would do s o a t a later date; ( 5 ) t h a t t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t would a l s o d e t e r m i n e a t a l a t e r d a t e whether a t t o r n e y f e e s would b e awarded and t h e amount of t h o s e f e e s . A p p e l l a n t , G l a c i e r G e n e r a l , h a s o b t a i n e d a s t a y of t h e o r d e r of t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ; c l a i m a n t w i l l c o n t i n u e r e c e i v i n g biweekly b e n e f i t payments pending t h e outcome of t h i s a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t h a s n o t c o n t e s t e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n o r i t s f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t i s permanently and t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71116 ( 1 3 ) , MCA. The f i r s t i s s u e , r e g a r d i n g t h e n a t u r e and s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n s u p p o r t of a c o n v e r s i o n of f u t u r e biweekly b e n e f i t s t o a lump sum payment, h a s been a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t i n many c a s e s . S t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e c o n v e r s i o n i n t o a lump sum o f biweekly payments p r o v i d e d f o r under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act i s found i n s e c t i o n 92-715 R.C.M., now s e c t i o n 39-71-741, MCA, MCA. 1947, I n 1979, s e c t i o n 39-71-741, was amended t o g i v e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t h e u a u t h o r i t y t o s e t t l e d i s p u t e s c o n c e r n i n g lump s m s e t t l e m e n t s where a n i n s u r e r and a c l a i m a n t d i s a g r e e d . A r t h u r G. McKee & Co. (1980), Mont.- , Willoughby v . 609 P.2d I n a r e c e n t c a s e , U t i c k v. U t i c k ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 593 P.2d 739, 741, 36 St.Rep. 799, 801-802, 700, Mont. - I t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d t h e broad p r i n c i p l e s g o v e r n i n g lump sum payments: "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t payments under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act a r e p e r i o d i c . Lump sum s e t t l e m e n t s a r e a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] T h i s d o e s n o t mean, however, t h a t lump sum awards a r e looked on with disfavor. They should be awarded w i t h o u t h e s i t a n c y 'where t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e p a r t i e s demand i t . ' [ L a u k a i t i s v. S i s t e r s of C h a r i t y of Leavenworth ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 135 Jlont. 469, 474, 342 P.2d 752, 755.1 Each c a s e f o r a lump sum payment s t a n d s o r f a l l s on i t s own m e r i t s . Codling v . Aztec W e l l S e r v i c i n g Co. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 89 N.M. 213, 549 P.2d 628." I n o t h e r c a s e s where t h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o award o r deny a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t , we have s t a t e d t h a t t h a t d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a n a p p a r e n t a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . v . S i e v e r t ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. U t i c k v . U t i c k , s u p r a ; Kent 79, 489 P.2d 104. The f i n d i n g s o f t h e lower t r i b u n a l o r board w i l l be presumed c o r r e c t and a f f i r m e d i f s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . s u p r a , 609 P.2d a t 702, 37 St.Rep. Willoughby, a t 623, and c a s e s t h e r e c i t e d . The Workers' Compensation C o u r t o r board i s "more favorably s i t u a t e d than [ t h i s Court] t o f a m i l i a r i z e i t s e l f with t h e circumstances surrounding t h e a p p l i c a n t , t o consider h i s needs, and t h e r e s u l t s which p r o b a b l y w i l l f o l l o w a c t i o n g r a n t i n g o r denying t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . 609 P.2d a t 704, 37 St.Rep. a t 625, . ." Willouqhby, s u p r a , (citation omitted). A p p e l l a n t m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t was t o o s c a n t y t o s u p p o r t i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t w i l l b e s t s e r v e t h e c l a i m a n t ' s interests. Appellant claims a contradiction e x i s t s i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t wants t o move t o a warm c l i m a t e a l t h o u g h c l a i m a n t h a s n o t r e a l l y checked o u t t h e c o s t of l i v i n g i n Phoenix o t h e r t h a n t o f i n d t h a t i t would c o s t more t h a n l i v i n g i n B u t t e , s o t h a t t h e move might a c t u a l l y be d e t r i m e n t a l t o c l a i m a n t and h i s w i f e . W e do n o t e t h a t more d e t a i l e d f a c t s r e g a r d i n g t h e a n t i c i p a t e d c o s t s and e x p e n s e s s h o u l d have been p r e s e n t e d by c l a i m a n t . The e v i d e n c e d i d show t h a t c l a i m a n t h a s been warned by h i s p h y s i c i a n t o a v o i d s t o o p i n g , bending, c r a w l i n g , heavy l i f t i n g and overhead work; t h e s l i g h t e s t p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n i s p a i n f u l t o him. H i s w i f e i s ill w i t h d i a b e t e s , m i g r a i n e headaches and i m p a i r e d c i r c u l a t i o n . The c l a i m a n t h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he and h i s w i f e keep m o s t l y t o t h e m s e l v e s ; t h e y have few c l o s e f r i e n d s l e f t i n t h e a r e a . While l i t t l e e v i d e n c e was s u b m i t t e d i n comparing B u t t e and Phoenix w i n t e r l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , t h e f a c t s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t l i f e away from below z e r o w e a t h e r , heavy s n o w f a l l and r u t t e d i c y r o a d s and s t r e e t s would be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h i s ill and a g i n g c o u p l e . T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y a r e u s u a l l y b e s t s e r v e d by having d i s a b i l i t y payments made periodically. "The p u r p o s e of [ t h e p e r i o d i c payment] method i s t o p r e c l u d e any p o s s i b i l i t y of a n i m p r u d e n t employee o r d e p e n d e n t w a s t i n g t h e means f o r s u p p o r t and t h e r e b y becoming [Citation omitted, 1 " a burden upon s o c i e t y . 135 Mont. a t 472, 342 P.2d a t 754. Laukaitis, supra, But t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t h a s found " t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t i s a p r u d e n t man, a b l e t o handle h i s f i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s . . ." The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t P o l i c h i s s o l v e n t , and t h a t h i s w i f e i s e l i g i b l e f o r retirement benefits. I t i s o n l y t h e a n t i c i p a t e d e x p e n s e of t h e move t o Phoenix t h a t g i v e s r i s e t o h i s r e q u e s t f o r a lump sum payment. I t i s p r e c i s e l y t h i s t y p e of human need and f i n a n c i a l burden t h a t s e c t i o n 39-71-741, t o cover. MCA i s d e s i g n e d Without a lump sum payment of b e n e f i t s , c l a i m a n t and h i s w i f e w i l l be u n a b l e t o make a move t h a t i s c l e a r l y i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r a g e and d e t e r i o r a t e d health. I n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , once s e t t l e d i n Phoenix t h e P o l i c h s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o l i v e , a s t h e y have i n B u t t e , q u i e t l y and w i t h i n t h e i r means. W e f i n d 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 upon which t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t c o u l d b a s e i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a lump sum s e t t l e m e n t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c l a i m a n t . There i s no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n i t s judgment t h a t , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 39-71-741, t o a conversion of h i s f u t u r e MCA, P o l i c h i s e n t i t l e d biweekly b e n e f i t payments i n t o a lump s u m payment. The second i s s u e r a i s e d i s whether t h e c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . a Appellant contends t h a t , s i n c e i t h a s a t a l l t i m e s been complying w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation A c t , c l a i m a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Compliance o r noncompliance w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation Act i s n o t r e l e v a n t t o t h i s i s s u e . The award of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s i n t h i s c a s e i s governed by s e c t i o n 39-71612, MCA, which s t a t e s : " ( 1 ) I f a n employer o r i n s u r e r pays o r t e n d e r s payment of compensation under c h a p t e r 71 o r 72 of t h i s t i t l e , b u t c o n t r o v e r s y r e l a t e s t o t h e amount of compensation due and t h e s e t t l e m e n t o r award i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e amount p a i d o r t e n d e r e d by t h e employer o r i n s u r e r , a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d i v i s i o n o r t h e w o r k e r s ' compensation judge i f t h e c a s e h a s gone t o a h e a r i n g based s o l e l y upon t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e amount s e t t l e d f o r o r awarded and t h e amount t e n d e r e d o r p a i d , may be awarded i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e amount f o r compensation. ( 2 ) When a n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e i s awarded a g a i n s t a n employer o r i n s u r e r under t h i s s e c t i o n t h e r e may be f u r t h e r a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e employer o r i n s u r e r r e a s o n a b l e c o s t s , f e e s , and m i l e a g e f o r n e c e s s a r y w i t n e s s e s a t t e n d i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e claimant's behalf. Both t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e w i t n e s s and t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e f e e s must be approved by t h e d i v i s i o n o r t h e w o r k e r s ' compensat i o n judge. " The c l a i m a n t h a s p r e v a i l e d i n a h e a r i n g where t h e s o l e c o n t r o v e r s y was t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e amount awarded and t h e amount t e n d e r e d . This m e e t s the s t a t u t o r y standard. This Court f i n d s t h a t t h e claimant i s e n t i t l e d t o reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 39-71612, MCA. W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e Workers' Compensation Court. I t i s t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e lower c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e amount of awards and f e e s , a s i t i s t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t o r e v i e w t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e lower c o u r t s . There- f o r e , w e remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e amount of t h e lump sum payment a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s a n d c o s t s t o which c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d . W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e L ( a h e , ~jg~h, 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.
