CLEVELAND v CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-250 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 CURTIS CLEVELAND, Claimant and Respondent, -vsCYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, and FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants and Appellants Appeal from: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable William E. hunt, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Lyman H. Bennett, 111, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Komrners Bozeman, Montana & Lineberger, Submitted on Briefs: September 11, 1981 . , : Decided :L. LJ 1 J t ,% rJEC 1- '198 Filed: - - 1981 J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. Employer, Cyprus I n d u s t r i a l M a t e r i a l s , a p p e a l s from a judgment i n Workers' Compensation C o u r t awarding c l a i m a n t permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s f o r a n i n j u r y amounting t o a 1 0 0 p e r c e n t l o s s of u s e of h i s a r m a t o r n e a r t h e shoulder. The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e r e i s 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 award. W e a f f i r m t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . C l a i m a n t i s a man i n h i s l a t e t h i r t i e s w i t h a h i g h s c h o o l e d u c a t i o n , who had been employed by Cyprus I n d u s t r i a l M a t e r i a l s f o r f i f t e e n y e a r s and had worked h i s way up t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f b o i l e r m a n a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c c i d e n t . He s e v e r e l y i n j u r e d h i s l e f t a r m i n a f a l l o n t o a c a t w a l k on F e b r u a r y 20, 1977. H i s employer was e n r o l l e d a t t h e t i m e of c l a i m a n t ' s i n j u r y under Compensation P l a n I1 of t h e Workers' Compensation Act. The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e i n j u r y a r o s e o u t of and i n t h e c o u r s e of c l a i m a n t ' s employment. The d e f e n d a n t a c c e p t e d l i a b i l i t y and p a i d c l a i m a n t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e amount f o r temporary t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y t h r o u g h J u l y 2 4 , 1979, a f t e r which d e f e n d a n t h a s p a i d c l a i m a n t bi-weekly f o r a permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y . benefits On J u l y 2 4 , 1977, d e f e n d a n t p a i d c l a i m a n t $2,000 a s a lump sum payment t o b e c r e d i t e d a g a i n s t f u t u r e b e n e f i t s a r i s i n g from a permanent partial disability rating. Claimant has s u f f e r e d r e c u r r e n t pain i n h i s a r m s i n c e the accident. He h a s been t r e a t e d by s e v e r a l p h y s i c i a n s and h a s t r a v e l e d t o S e a t t l e f o u r t i m e s f o r d i a g n o s i s and t r e a t m e n t a t a pain c l i n i c there. He h a s been s u p p l i e d w i t h e l e c t r i c t r a n s c u t a n e o u s n e r v e s t i m u l a t o r s (TNS), which h e l p r e l i e v e t h e p a i n i n h i s arm. Claimant i s purchasing a t r u c k , attempting t o r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m s e l f , b u t i s n o t a b l e t o work r e g u l a r l y b e c a u s e a n y p r o l o n g e d a c t i v i t y c a u s e s him s e v e r e , d e b i l i t a t i n g p a i n i n h i s l e f t arm. A d i s p u t e a r o s e between c l a i m a n t and d e f e n d a n t a b o u t t h e e x t e n t of c l a i m a n t ' s d i s a b i l i t y . The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e d i s a b i l i t y i s permanent, b u t d e f e n d a n t a l l e g e d t h a t c l a i m a n t ' s arm i s n o t 1 0 0 % d i s a b l e d and c l a i m a n t i s o n l y e n t i t l e d t o d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s equal t o a percentage of t h e amount c l a i m e d . On F e b r u a r y 8 , 1980, c l a i m a n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g w i t h t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on J u l y 22, 1980, a n d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment w e r e e n t e r e d f o r t h e c l a i m a n t on March 4, 1981. The Workers' Compensation C o u r t found t h a t c l a i m a n t was " e n t i t l e d t o permanent p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s e q u a l t o t o t a l o r 100% l o s s o f u s e o f h i s arm a t o r near t h e shoulder." On August 5 , 1980, i n a s e p a r a t e o r d e r , t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d a lump sum advance o f $ 6 , 7 0 0 t o b e c r e d i t e d toward b e n e f i t s t o which c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d . Defendant's p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g was d e n i e d and d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s t o t h i s Court. D e f e n d a n t m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t t o s u p p o r t i t s award, a r g u i n g t h a t , w i t h o u t a showing t h a t t h e r e h a s been a t o t a l l o s s o f u s a g e o f t h e i n j u r e d arm, t h e b e n e f i t s t o which c l a i m a n t i s e n t i t l e d s h o u l d be p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y r e d u c e d . D e f e n d a n t u r g e s t h a t , i f a f t e r r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d , t h i s Court concludes t h a t t h e evidence supports a finding of only p a r t i a l l o s s of u s e o f h i s arm by t h e c l a i m a n t , t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d r e q u i r e a p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e d u c t i o n of b e n e f i t s d u e claimant. D e f e n d a n t r e l i e s upon m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e s u p p l i e d by a n o r t h o p e d i c p h y s i c i a n from Bozeman, who e s t i m a t e d a n i m p a i r m e n t t o t h e whole man o f 40-50%, and a n e u r o s u r g e o n from B i l l i n g s , who r e p o r t e d t h a t i m p a i r m e n t of t h e e x t r e m i t y w a s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 0 % , e q u a l i n g a 24% i m p a i r m e n t o f t h e who1.e man. Defendant a l s o r e l i e d upon c l a i m a n t ' s own t e s t i m o n y t h a t c l a i m a n t was c a p a b l e of d r i v i n g a t r u c k and u s i n g h i s l e f t arm t o some e x t e n t on "good d a y s , " f o u r o r f i v e d a y s a week. Defendant refers t o t h e testimony of c l a i m a n t ' s w i f e t h a t c l a i m a n t has "some u s a g e " o f h i s l e f t arm. Finally, defendant r e f e r s t o t h e W o r k e r s ' Compensation C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t No. a n d No. 1 1 12 which m e n t i o n c l a i m a n t ' s e x t r e m e l y l i m i t e d a n d p a i n f u l u s e o f h i s arm. These f i n d i n g s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e m e d i c a l r e p o r t s and t e s t i m o n y , a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , a r e p r o o f t h a t c l a i m a n t i s c a p a b l e o f u s i n g h i s arm, d o e s u s e i t , and i s t h e r e f o r e n o t s u f f e r i n g from t o t a l l o s s of u s e o f h i s arm. Defendant argues t h a t t h i s Court should f i n d t h a t c l a i m a n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s c a l c u l a t e d on t h e b a s i s o f t o t a l l o s s o f h i s l e f t arm, b u t o n l y t o b e n e f i t s c a l c u l a t e d on a 40% l o s s o f u s e o f h i s arm. W e cannot agree. Defendant has n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h e d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t o f t h e p a i n s u f f e r e d by t h e c l a i m a n t when h e i s a c t i v e ; n o r h a s d e f e n d a n t c o n s i d e r e d t h a t t h e "good d a y s " a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d a y s i n which c l a i m a n t i s f r e e from p a i n and c a p a b l e o f d o i n g t h e work a sound man c o u l d do. The f a c t t h a t c l a i m a n t i s c a p a b l e of u s i n g h i s arm t o some e x t e n t d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y mean h e i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o b e n e f i t s e q u a l - t h o s e g r a n t e d f o r 1 0 0 % l o s s of to t h e u s e of a n arm. Nor i s t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p h y s i c i a n s a n e c e s s a r y y a r d s t i c k f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t of c l a i m a n t ' s disability. T h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y s t a t e d t h a t m e d i c a l impairment r a t i n g s a l o n e a r e n o t c o n c l u s i v e proof of a p a r t i c u l a r d e g r e e of d i s a b i l i t y : " 'Many f a c t o r s i n a d d i t i o n t o m e d i c a l i m p a i r ment r a t i n g s may be p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e c o u r t i n determining a c l a i m a n t ' s disability. For t h i s r e a s o n , impairment r a t i n g s d o n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y e s t a b l i s h l i m i t s on compensation awards i n a l l c a s e s ; r a t h e r , such m e d i c a l impairment r a t i n g s by p h y s i c i a n s a r e simply e x p e r t opinion evidence c o n s t i t u t i n g b u t one i t e m of e v i d e n c e t o be c o n s i d e r e d along with o t h e r evidence presented.' Ramsey v . Duncan ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont., 571 P.2d 384, 385, 34 St.Rep. 1277. "Here, t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t considered t h i s r a t i n g along with t h e o t h e r medical e v i d e n c e and c l a i m a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t h i s p a i n and i n a b i l i t y t o do t h e same k i n d of work s i n c e t h e i n j u r y , and found c l a i m a n t ' s t e s t i m o n y more weighty and c r e d i b l e t h a n t h e impairment rating." J e n s e n v . Zook Bros. Const. Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 178 Mont. 59, 64, 582 P.2d 1191, 1194. I n d e t e r m i n i n g c l a i m a n t ' s d e g r e e of d i s a b i l i t y , a n o t h e r f a c t o r must be c o n s i d e r e d , and t h a t i s p a i n . Anaconda Aluminum Co. 67, 71. Robins v . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. 514, 521, 575 P.2d F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s C o u r t h a s u p h e l d t h e award of permanent and even t o t a l d i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t s when t h e i n j u r y i s g r i e v o u s o r t h e p a i n s e v e r e , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h a t a c l a i m a n t h a s been a b l e t o do some work. v. Zook Bros. Const. Co., Thus, i n J e n s e n 178 Mont. a t 62-63, 582 P.2d a t "We h o l d t h a t t h i s e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g of t h e Workers' Compensat i o n C o u r t 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 d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he c a n and h a s done v a r i o u s odd j o b s . .. ... a man w i t h a s t i f f e n e d arm o r damaged back o r b a d l y weakened e y e w i l l presumably have a h a r d e r t i m e doing h i s work w e l l and meeting t h e c o m p e t i t i o n of young and h e a l t h y men. When a man s t a n d s b e f o r e t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t w i t h proven permanent II I p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s , f o r which t h e e x c l u s i v e remedy c l a u s e h a s a b o l i s h e d a l l p o s s i b i l i t y o f common-law damages, i t i s n o t j u s t i f i a b l e t o t e l l him h e h a s undergone no i m p a i r m e n t o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , s o l e l y on t h e s t r e n g t h of c u r r e n t pay checks.' Fermo v . S u p e r l i n e P r o d u c t s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 574 P.2d 251, 253, 35 S t . R e p . 22. " B e c a u s e c l a i m a n t c a n p e r f o r m a few odd j o b s f o r s h o r t p e r i o d s of t i m e does n o t preclude a f i n d i n g t h a t c l a i m a n t i s t o t a l l y and p e r manently d i s a b l e d . This k especially t r u e where, h e r e , the e v i d e n c e shows -that the c l a i m a n t m u s t work w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l d e g r e e ---of pa - -i n . as "Where t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e o f c o n t i n u i n g p a i n from t h e i n j u r y , w e h a v e s t a t e d t h e r u l e : . . . " ' T h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t claimant c a n n o t work w i t h o u t p a i n and h e c a n n o t e n d u r e t h e p a i n t o work. This c o n s t i t u t e s substant i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g a f i n d i n g of t o t a l permanent d i s a b i l i t y . ' Robins v . Anaconda Aluminum Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont., 575 P.2d 6 7 , 7 2 , 35 St.Rep. 213. " H e r e , c l a i m a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was s u f f e r i n g from p a i n ; t h a t h e c o u l d e n d u r e t h e p a i n i n h i s hand when h e was n o t u s i n g i t ; b u t t h a t when h e u s e d i t , t h e p a i n i n c r e a s e d a n d went up h i s arm. To d o a n y j o b , c l a i m a n t would h a v e t o u s e h i s hand a n d would b e i n pain. The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t h e c a n n o t work w i t h o u t p a i n and he c a n n o t endure t h e p a i n t o work. " (Emphasis added. ) C l a i m a n t h a s t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e s u f f e r s from s u b s t a n t i a l p a i n , which becomes d i s a b l i n g when h e i s a c t i v e f o r any l e n g t h of t i m e . H e h a s been informed t h a t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s permanent and could even d e t e r i o r a t e . When h e i s a c t i v e e v e n t h e TNS's f a i l t o a l l e v i a t e h i s p a i n , a l t h o u g h c l a i m a n t u s u a l l y w e a r s f o u r o f them and c a r r i e s a b a t t e r y p a c k t o r u n them. Claimant a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he cannot hold a steady j o b b e c a u s e , when t h e p a i n i n h i s arm i s s e v e r e , h e m u s t t a k e h o u r s , even d a y s , o f f , d o i n g n o t h i n g u n t i l t h e p a i n s u b s i d e s s u f f i c i e n t l y t h a t h e i s c a p a b l e o f working a g a i n . I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana t h a t t h e r e i s no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t e n t s of m e d i c a l r e p o r t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e case f i l e before the court. Assurance Co. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. Bond v . S t . Regis Paper Co. P.2d 372, 374. S t e v e n s v. G l a c i e r General 61, 66, 575 P.2d 1326, 1329; ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 417, 4 2 0 , 571 The m e d i c a l r e p o r t s c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s c a s e f i l e include physicians' statements t h a t the claimant's pain i s " p e r s i s t e n t , " " c o n s t a n t , " and n o t l i k e l y t o r e s p o n d t o normal t h e r a p y ; t h a t c l a i m a n t c a n s c a r c e l y go a n hour w i t h o u t t h e TNS b e f o r e e x p e r i e n c i n g s e v e r e p a i n , even on "good d a y s ; " and t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h i n h i s l e f t arm i s a f r a c t i o n of t h a t i n t h e o t h e r arm. The r e p o r t s f u r t h e r s t a t e t h a t , w i t h o u t a c t i v i t y , t h e p a t i e n t i s i n p a i n once o r t w i c e a day f o r t h r e e t o f o u r h o u r s ; t h a t c l a i m a n t must keep t h e arm away from s u n l i g h t and h e a t o r extreme c o l d , and t h a t t h e TNS i s i n e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g t h e p a i n when c l a i m a n t i s active. The r e p o r t s r e f e r t o c l a i m a n t a s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p a i n i s a t a " l e v e l which l e a v e s him u n a b l e t o work and t h a t he c o n s e q u e n t l y spends h i s d a y s d o i n g c h o r e s around t h e home t h a t a r e p o s s i b l e u s i n g one hand o n l y . " The Workers' Compensation C o u r t judge had t h e m e d i c a l r e p o r t s b e f o r e him, a s w e l l a s t h e t e s t i m o n y of c l a i m a n t and h i s wife. The s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i n Workers' Compensation c a s e s i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana: ". . . [ T l h i s Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y held t h e t e s t of s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o be 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 s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . See S t a m a t i s v . B e c h t e l Power Co. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont., 601 P.2d 403, 36 St.Rep. 1866; Head v. Larson (1979) Mont. , 592 P.2d 507, 36 St.Rep. 571; S t r a n d b e r g v . Reber Company (1978) , Mont. , 587 P.2d 1 8 , 35 St.Rep. 1742; J e n s e n v . Zook B r o t h e r s C o n s t r u c t i o n Company (1978) , Mont. , 582 P.2d 1191, 35 St.Rep. 1066. I n S t a m a t i s and J e n s e n , t h i s C o u r t f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t where t h e f i n d i n g s a r e based on c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , t h i s C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n on r e v i e w i s c o n f i n e d t o determining 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 s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and n o t t o d e t e r mine w h e t h e r t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o support contrary findings." L i t t l e v. S t r u c t u r a l Systems ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 614 P . 2d 516, 518-519, 37 S t . R e p . 1187, 1189. W e do f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l 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 and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e Workers' Compensation C o u r t i n t h i s case. Under t h e s t a n d a r d s o f r e v i e w a r t i c u l a t e d a b o v e , w e d e c l i n e t o d i s t u r b t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h a t c o u r t . Affirmed. @+dw Justic W e Concur: P A 4 $ C Chief ~ u s c 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.
