Preview:

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 Helena, Montana For Respondent: Utick & Grosfield; Norman Grosfield argued, Helena, Montana
&

Alke; Mike McCarter argued.,

Submitted: Decided:

September 25, 1985 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.
1974.

He underwent knee surgery in 1973 or 1980, he suffered a work-related injury He then

On March 20,

to his left knee when he was butted by a cow. 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 A portion was

was for permanent partial disability benefits. for retraining in college. The claimant did not complete college. work in early 1983.

He returned to

He first fell trees, then drove a truck, On August

and finally began logging for Cooper Logging, Inc.

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 The

1984 respondent underwent surgery to fuse his left knee.

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 The

compromise settlement indemnity award must be deducted.

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 Except for

the predecessor to the statute in issue here. minor

rewording the statute is identical to the present In Pietz this Court said that Workers' Compensation to be liberally construed, section 92-838,

version.

statutes are 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. 39-71-738, MCA. eye. the McDaniel also interpreted what is now

Download c8f854be-f21e-4354-ac53-f18cc5491ac7.pdf

Montana Law