Montana State Fund v. Murray, 2004 MT 33 (MT 4/6/2004)
| Decision Date | 06 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2002-0700,2002-0700 |
| Citation | 2004 MT 33 |
| Parties | MONTANA STATE FUND Petitioner v. CARL MURRAY and INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Respondent/Claimant and Respondent/Insurer. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Summary: The claimant suffered bilateral knee injuries in 1967 and 1974 which required removal of part or all of the cartilage of his knees. However, he continued to be physically active both in the jobs he performed and in his recreational activities. In 1982 he went to work for MSE Technology Applications, Incorporated (MSE) in Butte, initially as a security guard and mailman. He continued to work for MSE over the next eighteen and a half years. Much of his work involved standing on concrete or asphalt. From 1993 to 2000 the claimant suffered several painful episodes of knee pain, swelling, and effusion in connection with some of his non-employment, recreational activities, however, prior to 2000 he recovered quickly from the specific events. By 1996 it was clear that bilateral knee replacements were inevitable as his knees continued to degenerate. After being told in December of 2000 that his work at MSE contributed to his condition and his need for surgery, the claimant filed an occupational disease claim. An occupational medicine physician examined him at the request of the Department of Labor and Industry and agreed that the condition of his knees was significantly aggravated by his employment with MSE, however, after his deposition was taken the physician was presented with and answered written questions by the insurers regarding the cause of claimant's condition; he replied that his condition was not directly or "proximally" caused by his work at MSE. The question before the Court is whether his bilateral knee condition and his need for surgery is compensable under the Montana Occupational Disease Act.
Held: The claimant's bilateral knee condition is compensable if his work significantly aggravated a preexisting condition. Polk v. Planet Ins. Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997). The evidence establishes that his work in fact significantly aggravated his preexisting bilateral knee condition and led to or accelerated his need for knee replacement surgery, therefore, he is entitled to the indemnity and medical benefits available under the Occupational Disease Act. The insurer at risk during the claimant's last occupational exposure is liable.
Topics:
Limitations Periods: Claim Filing. Under the 1999 version of the Montana Occupational Disease Act, the period for filing a written claim for compensation does not commence running until the claimant is aware that his medical condition is attributable to his work. § 39-72-403, MCA (1999-2003).
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Code Annotated: 39-72-403, MCA (1999-2003). Under the 1999 version of the Montana Occupational Disease Act, the period for filing a written claim for compensation does not commence running until the claimant is aware that his medical condition is attributable to his work. § 39-72-403, MCA (1999-2003).
Evidence: Objections — Timeliness. An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid.
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Workers' Compensation Court Rules: Rule 24.5.317. An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid.
Evidence: Hearsay: Generally. An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid.
Evidence: Hearsay: Exceptions. An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid.
Evidence: Objections: Timeliness. An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid.
Occupational Disease: Proximate Cause. Aggravations of preexisting conditions are compensable under the Montana Occupational Disease Act. § 39-72-706, MCA (1989-2003).
Occupational Disease: Proximate Cause. The Montana Occupational Disease Act does not require that occupational exposures be the principal or substantial cause of the condition, only that the "occupational factors significantly aggravated a preexisting condition." § 39-72-408, MCA (1971-1999); Polk v. Planet Ins. Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997).
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Code Annotated: 39-72-706 MCA (1989-2003). Aggravations of preexisting conditions are compensable under the Montana Occupational Disease Act. § 39-72-706, MCA (1989-2003).
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Code Annotated: 39-72-706 MCA (1989-2003). The Montana Occupational Disease Act does not require that occupational exposures be the principal or substantial cause of the condition, only that the "occupational factors significantly aggravated a preexisting condition." § 39-72-408, MCA (1971-1999); Polk v. Planet Ins. Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997).
Occupational Disease: Proximate Cause. The fact that the claimant's recreational activities may have contributed to his preexisting bilateral knee condition does not preclude a finding of an occupational disease where the evidence establishes that the claimant's work significantly and materially aggravated his underlying condition.
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Code Annotated: 39-72-706 MCA (1989-2003). The fact that the claimant's recreational activities may have contributed to his preexisting bilateral knee condition does not preclude a finding of an occupational disease where the evidence establishes that the claimant's work significantly and materially aggravated his underlying condition.
Occupational Disease: Causation. The Montana Occupational Disease Act does not require that occupational exposures be the principal or substantial cause of the condition, only that the "occupational factors significantly aggravated a preexisting condition." § 39-72-408, MCA (1971-1999); Polk v. Planet Ins. Co., 287 Mont. 79, 951 P.2d 1015 (1997).
Occupational Disease: Insurer Liable. Under the last injurious exposure rule, the insurer at risk during the claimant's last injurious exposure at work prior to the first diagnosis of an occupational disease or the date the claimant knew or should have known he was suffering from an occupational disease is liable for the disease. The length of time the insurer was at risk is irrelevant to determining its liability.
Constitutions, Statutes, Rules, and Regulations: Montana Code Annotated: 39-72-303 MCA (1993-2003). Under the last injurious exposure rule, the insurer at risk during the claimant's last injurious exposure at work prior to the first diagnosis of an occupational disease or the date the claimant knew or should have known he was suffering from an occupational disease is liable for the disease. The length of time the insurer was at risk is irrelevant to determining its liability.
MIKE McCARTER Judge.
¶1 The trial in this matter was held in Helena, Montana, on March 16 , 2004. Petitioner, Montana State Fund, was represented by Mr. Thomas E. Martello. Claimant, Carl Murray, was present and represented by Mr. Bernard J. Everett. Respondent, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, was represented by Mr. Leo S. Ward.
¶2 Exhibits: Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 were admitted without an objection. Exhibit 3 — a post-deposition letter of Dr. Gary M. Rapaport in response to questions of counsel for the insurers — was admitted over the objection of the claimant since the objection was untimely. A further explanation of my ruling is set out in the Conclusions of Law section of this decision.
¶3 Witnesses and Depositions: The claimant was the sole witness at trial. In addition, the parties submitted the depositions of the claimant and Drs. Gary M. Rapaport, Nicholas Blavatsky, and Michael T. Gallagher.
¶4 Issues Presented: The Court restates the issues as follows:
¶4a Whether the claimant's occupational disease claim is timely.
¶4b If the claim is timely, whether the claimant is suffering from an occupational disease of his knees and, if so, which insurer is liable for his condition.
¶5 Having considered the Pretrial Order, the testimony presented at trial, the demeanor and credibility of the witness, the depositions and exhibits, and the arguments of the parties, the Court makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
¶6 The claimant is fifty-eight years old.
¶7 The claimant was a wholly credible witness.
¶8 Since trial testimony covered much of what was in the claimant's deposition, I have not cited to it. Nor have I cited to the trial testimony since no transcript of the trial has been prepared.
¶9 Over the years, the claimant has engaged in a number of jobs and occupations. Many involved physical labor. I summarize them as follows:
¶9a While in high school the claimant worked for a drug store stocking shelves.
¶9b During the summers of 1964 a...
To continue reading
Request your trial