DAVIS v JONES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Xo. 84-354 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 JOHN A. DAVIS (FATAL) VIVIAN MARIE DAVIS, Claimant and Respondent, GEORGE W. JONES, Employer, and MOUNTAIN WEST FA,W BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPAYY , Defendaht and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy Reardon, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Utick, Grosfield Montana & Uda; Andrew J. Utick, Helena, For Respondent: Joseph E. Engel, 111, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 28, 1985 Decided: June 13, 1985 Clerk - - Mr. Justice Court. L. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d C. D e f e n d a n t Mountain West Workers' liable Compensation to Court claimant finding for the from a n o r d e r o f appeals t h e O p i n i o n of the employer benefits under and the insurer Workers' Compensation A c t . This i s a continuation of been b e f o r e t h i s Court. P.2d 859, 40 S t . R e p . a case t h a t has previously I n Davis v. Jones (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 661 5 7 0 , we h e l d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r , J o n e s , was e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s t o b a r claimant's an r e q u e s t f o r compensation. appeal determination from the that Workers' Davis' The p r e s e n t a c t i o n i s Compensation fatal Court's heart was attack a compensable i n j u r y . Testimony i n d i c a t e d t h e following f a c t s : On F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 0 , J o h n D a v i s was w o r k i n g a s a r a n c h hand. One o f h i s d u t i e s was t o chop t h r o u g h t h e i c e c o v e r i n g c a t t l e w a t e r i n g To d o t h i s , h e u s e d a holes s o t h a t t h e c a t t l e could drink. d u l l a x t o b r e a k t h e i c e and a s h o v e l o r p i t c h f o r k t o rpmove t h e b r o k e n i c e from t h e h o l e . through activity the ice two feet usually led to H e would h a v e t o c h o p a h o l e wide Davis and ten getting feet wet from down, and o t h e r w i s e was v e r y s t r e n u o u s work. question, +20 long. This the knees On t h e d a t e i n t h e a i r t e m p e r a t u r e was somewhere b e t w e e n -10 degrees Fahrenheit, with a wind chill down to and -31 degrees. P r i o r t o 10:30 a.m. on F e b r u a r y 1 6 , D a v i s had a l r e a d y chopped o n e w a t e r i n g h o l e . began t o experience a while c h o p p i n g i c e t o make Sometime d u r i n g t h a t m o r n i n g h e sensation the like a brick on h i s c h e s t second w a t e r i n g h o l e . One time he passed out on the Davis regained co-employee, and consciousness, Louis Velasco, when regaining A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10:30 consciousness f e l t very cold. after ice the employer a.m., and a found him s i t t i n g o r k n e e l i n g on t h e i c e and l e a n i n g a g a i n s t t h e h a n d l e o f h i s a x h e u s e d t o chop t h r o u g h t h e i c e . who complained o f well. The employer s p o k e w i t h employee D a v i s c h e s t p a i n and s a i d t h a t h e d i d n o t f e e l The employer s u g g e s t e d t h a t h e l e a v e work and s e e a doctor. Shortly thereafter, Davis proceeded t o h i s v e h i c l e . pain, although less left the water hole and H e continued t o experience c h e s t severe than originally B e t w e e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y noon and 1:00 p.m., experienced. h e was s i t t i n g i n h i s v e h i c l e and c o n t i n u i n g t o e x p e r i e n c e m o d e r a t e c h e s t p a i n . He declined to help a co-employee. Davis told another t h a t h e was g o i n g t o see a d o c t o r and t h a t h e co-employee f e l t s i c k , a s t h o u g h he had t h e f l u . A t approximately 1:00 p.m. t h a t day, Davis a r r i v e d a t t h e home o f J u d y and Ralph Paddock. f r o n t yard, h e c o m p l a i n e d t o Judy Paddock a b o u t h a v i n g f e l t like was there passing out, consciousness. a and brick on feeling his chest very H e complained o f While s t a n d i n g i n t h e while cold chopping when ice, regaining s t i l l being cold, of c h e s t p a i n , and r e p e a t e d l y s a i d h e wanted t o c a l l D r . Sidensticker. O t h e r c o m p l a i n t s were o f numbness i n h i s h a n d s and a c h i n g i n h i s arms; arms. and w h i l e h e d i d s o h e r o t a t e d h i s s h o u l d e r s and To "shook-up." Judy Paddock, he appeared I n t h e Paddock h o u s e , pale, cold and D a v i s t o l d Ralph Paddock t h a t h e had p a s s e d o u t w h i l e c h o p p i n g i c e t h a t morning and t h a t r i g h t t h e n h e f e l t c o l d and had a c h e s t p a i n . Ralph Paddock testified that Davis appeared upset, nervous and scared. Davis p.m. and left the house a t approximately had to stop his wife, the vehicle 7:30 on each occasion. claimant, 8:00 p.m., for or something 4:30 three t i m e s W h i l e d r i v i n g home h e a l m o s t b l a c k e d - o u t a r r i v e d home a b o u t his Paddocks' When he h e immediately asked cold to drink, c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t h a v i n g b e e n t h i r s t y a l l d a y and a b o u t n o t h a v i n g been a b l e t o g e t enough c o l d f l u i d s t o d r i n k . s a t down looked and drank tired, approximately a g a l l o n o f g r a y and was s h a k i n g . H e then ice t e a . He He told h i s wife t h a t w h i l e c h o p p i n g ice d u r i n g t h e morning h e had p a s s e d o u t a f t e r H e a l s o complained o f h a v i n g "hard experiencing chest pain. A little b i t c h e s t p a i n s on and o f f a l l day." l a t e r while s i t t i n g a t t h e d i n n e r t a b l e , Davis complained o f c h e s t p a i n s He did not f i n i s h dinner. a n d numbness i n o n e arm. for something cream. cold to eat and then ate two H e asked bowls of ice H i s wife ran a t u b o f hot water s o t h a t he could t a k e h i s u s u a l b a t h , b u t h e s a i d t h a t h e was t o o t i r e d , h e would r a t h e r l i e down. and t h a t He t h e n g o t u p f r o m t h e d i n n e r t a b l e a n d w e n t i n t o t h e bedroom. Soon a f t e r D a v i s l e f t t h e k i t c h e n and w h i l e h i s w i f e was removing t h e d i n n e r d i s h e s s h e h e a r d him m o a n i n g i n t h e bedroom. S h e e n t e r e d t h e bedroom and was saw t h a t he had vomited. He rolling on the bed h o l d i n g h i s c h e s t and moaning, a c t i n g a s t h o u g h h e was u n a b l e t o g e t enough a i r . Vivian Davis, family station. grabbed car As his and the then claimant, drove to a g o t h e r husband nearby gasoline into the service t h e y p u l l e d up t o t h e g a s s t a t - i o n , John Davis chest and starting gasping for breath and rocking. The c l a i m a n t a t t e m p t e d t o c l e a r h i s t h r o a t . suddenly q u i t breathing. He S h e g a v e him a r t i f i c i a l r e s p i r a t i o n a n d r e v i v e d him t e m p o r a r i l y . H i s h e a r t a t t a c k c o n t i n u e d , and s e v e r a l m i n u t e s l a t e r h e s i g h e d d e e p l y and d i e d . The W o r k e r s ' C o m p e n s a t i o n C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t d i e d of a h e a r t a t t a c k . b e g a n w h i l e h e was hole on the I t a l s o found t h a t h i s h e a r t a t t a c k i c e t o make a s e c o n d w a t e r i n g chopping morning of February 16, 1980 and continued t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a y and e n d e d w i t h h i s d e a t h t h a t e v e n i n g . those findings, employer under and the the Workers' were insurer Workers' W e s t Farm B u r e a u , Compensation liable Compensation for Court held On that claimant's Appellant, Act. benefits Mountain p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review: (1) W h e t h e r there was a causal r e l a t i - o n s h i p between John Davis' myocardial i n f a r c t i o n and r e s u l t i n g d e a t h and h i s work a c t i v i t i e s . (2) Whether, even r e l a t i o n s h i p between his work compensable John activities, injury assuming Davis' such under there was myocardial myocardial t h e Montana a causal infarction infarction Workers' and is a Compensation Act. The W o r k e r s ' died Compensation C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e d e c e d e n t from a m y o c a r d i a l i n f a r c t i o n and t h a t t h i s i n j u r y was s u f f i c i e n t l y work r e l a t e d s o a s t o b r i n g i t w i t h i n t h e a m b i t of the Workers' Compensation determination, the weaknesses claimant's causal in relationship the heart attack. appellant between case, Act. In challenging this raises inconsistencies and alleging claimant's work an insufficient activities and I n c o n s i d e r i n g such an argument, w e have f i r m l y a d h e r e d t o t h e view t h a t w h e r e t h e f i n d i n g s a r e b a s e d on conflicting evidence, this Court's function on review is confined to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings, and not to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support contrary findings . Little v. Structural Systems (1980), 188 Mont. 482, 614 P.2d 516; Jensen v. Zook Brothers Construction Company (1978), 178 Mont. 59, 582 P.2d 1191; see also Jones v. St. Regis Paper Company (1981), 196 Mont. 138, 639 P.2d 1140. We find that the Workers' Compensation Court's order was based on substantial credible evidence in the record. a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, the In Workers' Compensation Court addressed many factors that went into its decision. credible The claimant witness. The herself was claimant's found to be hypothetical a very question presented to each party's expert was found to be accurate. s The claimant1 medical expert was found to be more qualified and his opinion was accorded greater weight. Finally, the nature of decedent's work and the particular activity he was engaged in at the time the initial heart attack occurred lends support to the Workers' Compensation Court's order. Given the presumption of correctness that accompanies the Workers' Compensation Court's findings when they reach this Court, we will not overrule this order, Erhart v. Great Western Sugar Company (1976), 169 Mont. 375, 546 P.2d 1055; Hurlbut v. Vollstedt Kerr Company (1975), 167 Mont. 303, 308, 538 P.2d 344, 346; Hunt and Luinstra, "The Montana Workers' Compensation Court" 41 Mont.L.Rev. 1, 18, (1980). As to the second issue, we have in the past held that in certain cases heart attacks are cornpensable injuries under Montana Workers' Compensation Act. See, Rathbun v. Taber Tank Lines, Inc. (compensation Company allowed); (1979), 129 Company, denied) . Manual 53.40 v. 190, 560, 121, P.2d Ness 393 P.2d suffered a job The q u e s t i o n related . . . harm," Bros. 43, Hurlbut v. Asphalt (compensation Workers ' Compensation of w h e t h e r a n employee " t a n g i a b l e happening o f s e c t i o n 39-71-119, 966, Constr. Diamond n a t u r e from a n u n e x p e c t e d c a u s e o r u n u s u a l in P.2d 1107; v. S e e a l s o G r o s f i e l d , Montana (1979). 283 Wickens 598 supra; ( 1 9 6 4 ) " 1 4 3 Mont. Company Mont. Dumont 1 8 3 Mont. Kerr Vollstedt (1955), MCA, a traumatic strain resulting i s one o f f a c t . In t h a t r e g a r d t h e c o u r t must " r e l y on c r e d i b l e m e d i c a l e v i d e n c e to determine" B a i r ' s Cafe whether the ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 152 Mont. a l s o Dumont v. i s compensable, injury Wickens B r o s . v. 923, 9 2 6 , see 1 3 , 1 9 , 445 P.2d C o n s t r . Company, Jones s u p r a , a t 205, 206, 598 P.2d a t 1107. The l o w e r c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e n o t e d t h a t " i n t h e i n s t a n t case, and t h e d e c e d e n t was p e r f o r m i n g . . . the attack. The I' is relies medical evidence Hurlbut case, distinguishable "Claimant failed to supra, under the Dumont , supra Hurlbut, the caused upon fact his which that labor heart appellant this Court, noted t h a t he could - s t a t e not Hurlbut's h e a r t a t t a c k and h e l d : carry his qualify it proved in quoting t h e medical w i t n e s s , what was t h e c a u s e o f M r . strenuous physical statute for supra, burden and therefore benefits." Ness , In supra, cannot accord and are Ra t h b u n , supra. Again, w e a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n of 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 on t h e r e c o r d Workers' decedent's Compensation heart attack Court's was t o support t h e determination caused by his work. that the Experts t e s t i f i e d on b e h a l f cause of testimony, decedent's and h e l d preponderance of of each side. heart Each e l a b o r a t e d upon t h e attack. The t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t had the credible medical d e c e d e n t ' s h e a r t a t t a c k w a s work r e l a t e d . court heard this e s t a b l i s h e d by a evidence We that find there is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d and t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s , therefore, affirmed. i Justice W e concur: N / '
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.
