Hall v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO Aluminum), 90-562

• Decision Date: 04 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-562,90-562
• Citation: 248 Mont. 484,812 P.2d 1262
• Parties: Sam R. HALL, Claimant and Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., (ARCO ALUMINUM), Employer, and CIGNA Insurance Company, Defendant, Insurer and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1262

812 P.2d 1262

248 Mont. 484

Sam R. HALL, Claimant and Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO., (ARCO ALUMINUM), Employer, and CIGNA Insurance Company, Defendant, Insurer and Respondent.

No. 90-562.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs May 10, 1991.

Decided June 4, 1991.

John C. Doubek, Small, Hatch, Doubek & Pyfer, Helena, for claimant and appellant.

Michael C. Prezeau, Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, for defendant, insurer and respondent.

HARRISON, Justice.

Sam R. Hall appeals from the judgment of the Montana Workers' Compensation Court entered September 7, 1990, denying him medical benefits, attorney's fees, costs, and penalties. We affirm.

Hall presents the following issues:

1. Does substantial evidence support the conclusion of the Workers' Compensation Court that Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) is not responsible for Hall's medical bills?

2. Did the Workers' Compensation Court err by not finding claimant temporarily totally disabled or "presently" permanently totally disabled?

Summary of Facts

Sam R. Hall, age 38, has a long history of injuries incurred while employed for several different companies and while engaged in other pursuits.

In 1973 Hall injured his back while operating a jack hammer for a construction company in the Seattle area and approximately a month afterward again injured his back and left shoulder in an automobile accident. Hall later worked for Boeing Company and was terminated from that job because of neck injuries sustained in a skiing accident which made lifting of heavy materials difficult. In 1978 Hall was examined by a physician who diagnosed lower back pain secondary to arthritis and chronic cervical spinal injuries. The doctor recommended an exercise program and stated that "no restriction on his job is made."

Hall began working for ARCO and its predecessor, Anaconda Aluminum, on September 11, 1979. Hall alleges that he injured his lower back on three or more occasions while working for ARCO. On November 11, 1980, Hall injured his back when he struck a wire while running and was catapulted into the air, landing on his back. Hall filed no claim and received no benefits. Less than a month later, Hall went to a doctor about back pain, but did not attribute the pain to a particular event. On September 8, 1981, Hall injured his left arm when he accidentally struck an "I" beam at the aluminum plant.

Hall went to work for Plum Creek Timber in 1982. On March 15, 1983, he sustained an on-the-job injury to his right knee which required surgery. Hall later received a $21,000 settlement for the knee injury. While employed by Plum Creek, Hall saw a doctor for a lower back injury incurred while he was lifting heavy logs.

Hall returned to work for ARCO in 1984 after having passed a Cybex test and a physical examination. On May 5, 1984, he injured his neck, shoulder, and middle back when he slipped backwards while raking a pot at the aluminum plant. A doctor who examined Hall said that he had pulled a trapezius muscle, an injury which does not usually cause permanent disability. About a year later, on July 14, 1985, Hall was thrown out of the seat of a sweeper, injuring his neck, shoulders, and back, and requiring stitches for a cut on his head. According to the Statement of Uncontested Facts included in the findings of the Workers' Compensation Court, ARCO accepted liability for the May 5, 1984 and July 14, 1985 injuries and paid compensation and medical benefits relating to those claims. During his court testimony, Hall also claimed an injury to the left ankle in 1984 or 1985.

On September 15, 1985, Columbia Falls Aluminum Company (CFAC) purchased the ARCO aluminum plant. While employed by CFAC, Hall injured his neck and shoulders on October 17, 1985; his left elbow on October 8, 1986; and his right knee and back on December 11, 1986. Hall received a $50,000 settlement for the 1986 injuries. A claim is still pending for the injuries suffered in 1985.

The 1986 elbow injury resulted in acute avulsion fracture of the elbow with tendonitis. Another doctor diagnosed olecranon bursitis with no evidence of ulnar neuropathy. On December 9, 1986, the doctor recorded that the bursitis in Hall's elbow was resolving itself and released Hall to light-duty work.

In a letter dated December 18, 1986, Hall resigned from CFAC because of "problems I continue to experience with my elbow" and because "my knee also is aggravated by even normal use."

Since terminating his job at CFAC, Hall has not looked for employment. Hall acknowledged that he could be employed if he were willing to work for minimum wage.

According to his treating physician, John V. Stephens, M.D., with the exception of his left elbow injury, Hall had reached maximum healing.

Hall filed claims with ARCO's insurer for payment of accumulated medical bills, maintaining that he continued to suffer pain in his left elbow from the September 1981 accident at ARCO and pain in his cervical and lower back from several other injuries he incurred while working for ARCO. When ARCO's insurer refused to accept liability, Hall petitioned the Workers' Compensation Court to receive medical benefits from ARCO.

The Workers' Compensation Court concluded that Hall is not temporarily totally disabled and that medical evidence did not establish that Hall is disabled from injuries he sustained while working for ARCO. From this judgment, Hall appeals.

I

Does substantial evidence support the conclusion of the Workers' Compensation Court that ARCO is not responsible for Hall's medical bills?

Hall first alleges that testimony of Dr. Stephens, his treating physician since May 14, 1987, establishes that his right knee, left ankle, and back pain are attributable to injuries sustained while working for ARCO.

The well-established standard for review of a decision of the Workers' Compensation Court is whether substantial evidence...