Tiedeman v. Cooper Logging, Inc. ( 1985 )


Menu:
  •                                NO. 84-500
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1985
    RONALD TIEDEMAN,
    Claimant and Respondent,
    COOPER LOGGING, INC.,
    Employer,
    and
    STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM:    Workers' Compensation Court, The Honorable Timothy
    Reardon, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant :
    Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan      &   Alke; Mike McCarter argued.,
    Helena, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Utick & Grosfield; Norman Grosfield argued, Helena,
    Montana
    Submitted:        September 25, 1985
    Decided:        October 2 9 , 1955
    Filed:   OCT 3.9 1985
    --          w Yq6  Clerk
    *.
    ,-
    "
    + + 1 4& ,Fdgl&
    + 11/
    ,d
    Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. , delivered the Opinion of
    the Court.
    The    appellant,    State   Compensation   Insurance   Fund,
    appeals from a decision that the respondent, Ronald Tiedeman
    i s entitled to a lump sum a.dvance of a potential partial
    .
    disability a.ward without      reduction for permanent partial
    disability payments made as a result of a prior in-jury to the
    same body part.
    We affirm.
    The issue presented is whether the Workers' Compensation
    Court erred in holding that the claimant is entitled to
    permanent partial d-isability benefits without any deduction
    of a previous permanent partial disability award as a result
    of a prior injury to the same body part.
    The respondent, Ronald Tiedeman, has had a history of
    left knee problems.       He underwent knee surgery in 1973 or
    1974.   On March 20,     1980, he suffered a work-related injury
    to his left knee when he was butted by a cow.            He then
    underwent   two   knee    operations.   The   State Compensation
    Insurance Fund accepted liability for the 1980 injury and
    paid temporary total disability benefits until February 1982
    when the parties entered into a full and final compromise
    settlement agreement.       A portion of this settlement amount
    was for permanent partial disability benefits.      A portion was
    for retraining in college.
    The claimant did not complete college.       He returned to
    work in early 1983.      He first fell trees, then drove a truck,
    and finally began logging for Cooper Logging, Inc.      On August
    25, 1983, he reinjured his knee when he fell off a log while
    cutting limbs.
    The State Fund accepted liability and commenced paying
    respondent temporary total disability benefits.            In February
    1984 respondent underwent surgery to fuse his left knee.          The
    respondent requested. a lump sum advance on a prospective
    entitlement.     The State Fund resisted.         One of the grounds
    upon which the State Fund resisted was that in computing any
    prospective     indemnity   award   the   prior     full   and   final
    compromise settlement indemnity award must be deducted.           The
    Workers' Compensat.ion Court held that no consideration is to
    be given to the prior indemnity award.
    Section 39-71-738, MCA, provides:
    39-71-738. Adjustment of compensation in case of
    further injuries. Should a further accident occur
    to a worker who is already receiving compensation
    hereunder or who has been previously the recipient
    of a payment under this chapter, his further
    compensation is adjusted according to the other
    provisions of this chapter and with regard to his
    past receipt of compensation.
    In Pietz v. Industrial Accident Board (1953), 
    127 Mont. 316
    , 
    264 P.2d 709
    , this Court stated:
    The capacities of a human being cannot be
    arbitrarily and finally decided and written off by
    percentages. The fact that a man has once received
    compensation, as for example, where he has
    previously received 250 weeks or half the statutory
    amount, does not mean that forever after he is in
    the eyes of the compensation law but half a man, so
    that he can never again receive a compensation
    award going beyond the other fifty percent of
    total. After having received his prior payment, he
    may, in future years, as in the present case, be
    physically able to and does resume full gainful
    employment for several years, and if he does, there
    is no reason or logic why a disability from an
    unscheduled industrial accidental injury, which
    would bring anyone else total permanent disability
    benefits, should. yield him only half as much. We
    think the legislature ha.d no such intention in
    dra-ftingthis Act.
    Pietz, 264 P.2d at 712-713.
    In Pietz the prior injury was "to a different segment of
    his Sody."     Pietz, 264 P.2d at 712.     The issue in Pietz was
    whether payment for an injury should be reduced by payments
    made for the prior injury.        The Court in Pietz had before it
    the predecessor to the statute in issue here.                Except for
    minor    rewording the statute is identical to the present
    version.    In Pietz this Court said that Workers' Compensation
    statutes are      to be    liberally construed, section            92-838,
    R.C.M.    (1947), now 5 39-71-1-04, MCA, and that the employer
    takes the employee subject to his physical condition at the
    time he enters employment.        Pietz, 264 P.2d at 712.      Based. on
    these reasons, the Pietz Court held that there would be no
    reduction of prior awards in successive disabilities.
    Appellant, on the other hand, cites McDaniel v. Eagle
    Coal Company (1935), 
    99 Mont. 309
    , 
    43 P.2d 655
     in support of
    its position.         McDaniel also interpreted what is now             §
    39-71-738, MCA.       In McDaniel the claimant previously lost one
    eye.     He received 200 weeks of compensation.            He then lost
    the     other   eye   becoming    totally     d-isabled.     His    total
    disability was 500 weeks.         The Court applied what is now         §
    39-71-738, MCA, and        reduced the award by        the    200 weeks
    already    received.      Pietz   did   not    specifically    overrule
    McDaniel or even mention it.
    The appellant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, argues
    that       39-71-738, MCA,       requires   that   permanent       partial
    disability payments for the 1980 knee injury be deducted from
    any final permanent partial disability award for the 1983
    knee injury.      It cites McDaniel as the proper approach when
    dealing with 5 39-71-738, MCA.          The appel-lant urges us to
    overrule the Pietz decision, or, if it is not overruled,
    limit it to the specific facts in the case and apply it only
    to temporary and permanent total disability cases and not
    restrict the application of S 39-71-738, MCA, to adjustment
    in partial disability cases.
    We hold that Pietz is the controlling 1a.w in this state
    regarding the application of S                  39-71-738, MCA.         To give
    effect to the rule of liberal construction and the rule that
    the employer takes the employee subject to the employee's
    physical condition at the time of employment, 5 39-71-738,
    MCA, can only apply to individual injuries, a. particular
    injury from a particular accident, not to separate injuries
    in separate accidents.             Pietz is the enlightened approach.
    Pietz holds that where a claimant, some three years
    before, had suffered an industrial accident to a different
    segment of     his    body    and        drew   compensation for two        and
    one-half months, that compensation paid would not be deducted
    from a present claim.         It is in line with the humane purpose
    of the compensation act.           It is based on liberal construction
    and the established concept that the employer takes the
    employee as found.      It also recognizes that an injured worker
    should not be forever reduced in capacity by some percentage
    in the eyes of the Law.
    Tiedeman was injured to his left knee in March 1980.                     He
    received $198 per week until February 1982 as temporary total
    disability.    At that time he entered into a full and final
    compromise settlement agreement.                 Part of that settlement
    included    143 weeks        of    payments      at    $99 per   week    as an
    indemnity claim for partial disability.                 Tiedeman returned to
    work in January 1983.         He was injured again to his left knee
    in August     1983.     He        then    received     $168.23   per week    as
    temporary total disability benefits.                  Tiedeman then requested
    a lump sum advance on his future potential awa.rd.                          The
    insurer,    State     Fund,       resisted      on    the   ground   that   any
    calculation would necessitate reduction for the prior award.
    The Compensation Court, relying on Pietz, held that there
    would be no reduction.               It said that each new cornpensable
    injury, though successive, begins a new benefit consideration
    beginning at zero.
    We agree.     Pietz presents the correct approach and we
    reaffirm the holding contained therein.               Insofar as McDaniel
    is inconsistent, it is hereby overruled.
    Affirmed.
    /
    i
    i
    Justice
    .JaFL-.=
    We Concur:
    Chief Justice
    Ud 4      /'
    ,J   ('        ,
    Justices
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84-500

Judges: Hunt, Turnage, Harrison, Morrison, Weber, Sheehy, Gulbrandson

Filed Date: 10/28/1985

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/11/2024