Hartung v. Mont. State Fund
| Decision Date | 15 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | WCC No. 2014-3374 |
| Citation | 2016 MTWCC 3 |
| Parties | CLOY HARTUNG Petitioner v. MONTANA STATE FUND Respondent/Insurer. |
| Court | Montana Workers Compensation Court |
Summary: Petitioner maintains that the settlement of his workers' compensation claim should be reopened or rescinded because he lacked the mental capacity to consent to the settlement or because his consent to settle was obtained through undue influence. Respondent counters that the facts of the case do not show any undue influence exerted on Petitioner to settle his claim, and the fact that Petitioner has entered into two marriages, a dissolution of marriage, and two attorney retainer agreements with his current legal counsel is evidence of his capacity to contract. Respondent also points out that Petitioner does not have a guardian or a conservator appointed to help him manage his affairs, and he has never been adjudicated incompetent.
Held: Petitioner has failed to prove he lacked the mental capacity to understand the terms of the Petition for Settlement and has failed to prove that Respondent exerted undue influence over him. He is not entitled to reopen or rescind the settlement on the grounds asserted.
¶ 1 The trial in this matter began on November 25, 2014, and concluded on January 21, 2015, in Kalispell. Petitioner Cloy Hartung was present and represented by Laurie Wallace. Thomas E. Martello represented Respondent Montana State Fund (State Fund).
¶ 2 Exhibits: This Court admitted Exhibits 1 through 15, 17 through 35, and 37 through 49 without objection. This Court overruled the relevancy objections to Exhibits 16 and 36 and they were admitted.
¶ 3 Stipulations: The parties stipulated that the 2009 version of the Workers' Compensation Act applies to this case.1
¶ 4 Witnesses and Depositions: The parties filed the depositions of Hartung and Michaun Archer, and they are considered part of the record. Hartung, Cheryl Hellbusch, Don Agan, MA, CRC, and Norman W. Johnson, CRC, ABVE/F, were sworn and testified.
¶ 5 Issues Presented: The Pretrial Order sets forth the following issues:2
Since this Court has ruled against Hartung on Issue One, this Court does not reach Issues Two or Three.
¶ 6 Hartung testified at trial. This Court found him to be a credible witness.
¶ 7 Hartung grew up on his father's ranch in the Moiese area of western Montana.4 Hartung attended Charlo High School and graduated in 2002.5 His degree was attained by attending special education classes. A modified curriculum was developed for him in accordance with an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) that took into account, inter alia, hislow IQ and poor reading ability. In his senior year, Hartung's IEP included learning the concept of days of the week.
¶ 8 In his afternoons after school and on the weekends, Hartung milked and fed cows, cut hay, changed irrigation pipe, fixed fence, and moved cattle on horseback.6 He operated a grain truck, a truck with a hoist, a backhoe, a tractor with a bucket, a swather, and a baler.7 Hartung participated in team roping competitions at rodeos.8 He was the "header," roping the steer's head while his partner lassoed the hind legs.9
¶ 9 In 2002, Patricia L. Webber, PhD, conducted a psychological evaluation of Hartung.10 She administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III.11 His score was in the "Extremely Low" range.12 Dr. Webber stated that his results "indicate driving is a very questionable goal."13 Dr. Webber also stated that his results indicated that he was "not capable of handling his own funds."14
¶ 10 Hartung was, however, able to obtain a valid driver's license.15
¶ 11 Hartung met Archer in October 2008.16 Archer graduated in the top 3% of her high school class and received a scholarship to attend Jamestown College in North Dakota, where she graduated in 2009 with a teaching degree in elementary education and endorsements in special education and in early childhood.17 She also attended classes at Flathead Valley Community College to attain her Montana teaching certificate.18 At the time of her testimony, she was teaching third and fourth grade in the Whitefish SchoolDistrict,19 where she worked with special education and special needs children,20 and was working on obtaining a master's degree.21
¶ 12 On November 15, 2008, Hartung began working on a ranch outside of Kalispell.22 Hartung was hired to take care of the cows and move them around in their pens to make sure they were moving and healthy.23 He also changed out irrigation pipe, helped with the haying, and operated a backhoe, moving dirt and digging holes.24
¶ 13 Hartung and Archer became engaged in April 2009.25
¶ 14 On August 25, 2009, Hartung lost his dominant right hand and wrist in an industrial accident involving an auger.26
¶ 15 Hartung dictated the answers to the questions on the State Fund's First Report to Archer, who filled in the information.27
¶ 16 State Fund accepted liability for his claim.28 Hellbusch adjusted Hartung's claim. Hartung felt that Hellbusch treated him "all right . . . as a person," but he did not think she always kept him informed as to what was happening and did not think she was "efficient."29 Hartung testified that while Hellbusch approved most of his and his doctor's requests, it often took a while to get done.30 Hartung was also dissatisfied with Hellbusch because it often took two or three days for her to return phone calls.31
¶ 17 Hellbusch testified at trial. This Court found her to be a credible witness.
¶ 18 Hellbusch telephoned Hartung at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle the day after his accident.32 Since Hartung was asleep, Hellbusch spoke with Archer, who was in his hospital room.33 Archer explained that they had hoped to salvage Hartung's hand, but because of the damage, the decision was made to amputate his right hand two inches above the wrist.34 Hellbusch gave Archer her name and telephone number, answered questions, and told Archer to call her with questions or concerns.35
¶ 19 Within a week of the accident, Hellbusch knew that Hartung had a "slight learning disability."36
¶ 20 Hellbusch kept in frequent contact with Hartung and Archer throughout her handling of his claim.37 Hellbusch's claims notes reflect that Hartung regularly spoke to Hellbusch about issues on his claim.38 From Hellbusch's perspective, Archer was "very" active in communicating Hartung's needs. Archer agreed that she frequently communicated with Hellbusch:
¶ 21 Throughout Hartung's claim, Archer read him documents and discussed them with him.40
¶ 22 A medical advisor for State Fund informed Hellbusch on August 31, 2009, that Hartung's impairment rating for a right-hand amputation would be at least 54%.41
¶ 23 On October 13, 2009, Archer contacted Hellbusch by e-mail and requested an advance of Hartung's benefits so he could move from his former employer's ranch, board his horses, fix his truck, and for other expenses.42 Hellbusch agreed to a $20,000 advance.43 Hartung signed the Petition for Advance and Archer witnessed it.44
¶ 24 Hartung saw Edward H. Trontel, PhD, a clinical psychologist, for the first time on October 28, 2009, for help with the "great anxiety and emotional distress" arising out of his accident and amputation.45 Dr. Trontel obtained a thorough history from Hartung.46 Dr. Trontel noted that Hartung had a "preexisting learning disability," but that "[c]ommunication of ideas was relevant, coherent, and progressive."47 However, Dr. Trontel noted: 48
¶ 25 Hartung returned to Dr. Trontel on November 3, 2009.49 Archer accompanied Hartung, and Dr. Trontel noted she was "understanding of her husband's cognitive limitations."50 Dr. Trontel recorded that Hartung "said he was a 'hands-on learner' and was confused in situations in which complex language and writing were necessary."51 Dr. Trontel also noted:
Surprisingly, he revealed that he was on SSDI for reasons that were unclear. It was believed that his learning difficulties were responsible, as was anxiety, and his psychometric IQ might be lower than immediately apparent. His mother was his co-payee, and he had been awarded benefits in the distant past. Because he valued work, he sought employment, with payment offsets occurring. An attempt will be made to solicit the consultative exami[na]tion, if available, and testing will be considered, although his sensitivity to failure and exposure of limitations militates against doing so, at present.52
¶ 26 Hartung returned to Dr. Trontel on November 24, 2009.53 Dr. Trontel reported that Hartung was using cognitive behavioral strategies to avoid conflict.54 Dr. Trontel noted that Hartung's mentation was within normal limits but that he had "attentional and comprehension difficulty."55 Dr. Trontel diagnosed Hartung with "Learning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...of any provision of law that was intended solely for his benefit as long as the waiver does not violate public policy). 41. Hartung v. Mont. State Fund, 2016 MTWCC 3, ¶¶ 61-68 (citing Wilkes v. Estate of Wilkes, 2001 MT 118, 305 Mont. 335, 27 P.3d 433). Cf. Pearson v. Mont. Ins. Guar. Assoc......