Credibility

SEE ALSO Proof: Conflicting Evidence

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 As for witnesses who testify in person at trial, the court defers to the WCC’s findings concerning credibility and the weight to be accorded to this testimony. However, since the court is in as good a position as the WCC to assess testimony presented at trial by way of deposition, the court conducts de novo review of deposition testimony.
 
MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISONS
Barnea v. Ace American [12/21/08] 2007 MTWCC 58 Petitioner’s treating physician did not testify, but asserted by letter that Petitioner’s neck pain, while absent from Petitioner’s initial post-accident medical records, existed from the time of the industrial accident. While the Court cannot assess the doctor’s credibility since he did not testify, Respondent urges the Court to doubt the veracity of the doctor’s assertion, although it has given the Court no reason to do so.
Feuerherm v. Liberty Northwest Insurance [12/04/07] 2007 MTWCC 50 Where the Court found Petitioner to otherwise be a credible witness and where her explanation of tripping and hitting a doorway differed from the exam note of a doctor who did not testify and who was never questioned as to whether he possibly confused the tripping incident with Petitioner’s industrial accident, and where a second doctor testified that his description of Petitioner’s tripping incident was not recorded by him but by another doctor who also did not testify, the Court finds Petitioner’s explanation of the tripping incident to be credible.
Healy v. Liberty Northwest [10/23/07] 2007 MTWCC 43 Where the claimant and an examining doctor disagreed as to how long a medical appointment lasted, they substantially agreed on what occurred during the appointment. Therefore, the discrepancy in duration does not point to a lack of credibility on the part of either party.
Somerville v. MACo Workers' Compensation Trust [06/11/07] 2007 MTWCC 20 Where the testimony of witnesses for both parties changed between their depositions and their live testimony at trial, the Court finds it difficult to ascribe complete credibility to any witness’ account of the alleged industrial accident. The Court ultimately found Respondent’s witnesses to be more credible, although not entirely convincing, after taking the witnesses’ live testimony, respective demeanors, and the content of their versions of events into account.
A. Johnson v. Liberty [01/05/07] 2007 MTWCC 1 Petitioner claimed to have reported an industrial accident to a supervisor at about the same time as the supervisor left that employment, but no accident report was found. The Court did not find Petitioner’s industrial accident claim credible where Petitioner’s testimony was inconsistent, Petitioner did not describe the accident on the claim form she filed with Respondent, and Petitioner’s extensive contemporary medical records contained no evidence that Petitioner ever claimed that she was injured in a fall at work until nearly two years after she left her employment.
Warren v. State Fund [11/23/04] 2004 MTWCC 77 Based on the Court's observation of the demeanor and testimony of the witnesses at trial, and taking into consideration the claimant's explanation of the circumstances surrounding the filing of her written claim, the Court finds the claimant credible and enters its findings accordingly.

Scozzari v. MSGIA [2/17/04] 2004 MTWCC 7 Based on the Court's observation of the claimant's demeanor, claimant's expressed antipathy towards pursuing a workers' compensation claim, and her subsequent actions, the Court finds claimant's assertion that she dropped a claim off at her employer's office the day after the accident is not credible.