Hert v. J.J. Newberry Co.
Montana Supreme Court
584 P.2d 656, 178 Mont. 355 (1978)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
On July 16, 1971, Delilah Hert (plaintiff) suffered injuries when she fell down the stairs during her employment with J. J. Newberry Co. (Newberry) (defendant). Hert was treated by multiple doctors. Dr. E. W. Haaby, a chiropractor, treated Hert beginning August 1, 1971. Hert filed for workers’-compensation benefits and was paid benefits through August 6, 1971. Hert returned to work for Newberry but still had pain. Hert fell a second time during her employment on January 28, 1974. Hert quit her job on October 11, 1974, because she could not tolerate the amount of medication she had to take. Hert filed a petition for a hearing before the Workers’ Compensation Court to recover compensation for injuries she sustained from her first fall in July 1971. The court stated at the beginning of the hearing that it would take judicial notice of the material in the Workers’ Compensation Division file. The court admitted into evidence over Hert’s objection copies of medical reports that were not provided to Hert’s attorney. Dr. Haaby testified at the hearing, but all other medical evidence was by letter-report. The court found that Hert did not prove a causal relationship between her current complaint and the July 1971 injury. The court found that the medical evidence showed there was no present disability. The judge denied benefits to Hert, and Hert appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sheehy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.