Evidence: Conflicting

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 Where the evidence relied on by the WCC rises above the level of “trifling or frivolous” and constitutes far more than a mere “scintilla” of evidence, and the Montana Supreme Court concludes that a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to support the WCC’s finding that the claimant’s odontoid was fractured in her industrial accident, it is irrelevant that contradictory evidence presented by the employer may adequately support a different finding. The Montana Supreme Court’s role is not to resolve conflicts in the evidence or to determine whether the evidence would support contrary findings.
Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 When reviewing the WCC’s findings of fact, the court does not resolve conflicts in evidence and does not consider whether evidence supports findings that are different than those made by the WCC. Review is confined to determining whether substantial credible evidence supports the findings made by the WCC.

Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 273 Mont. 313, 903 P.2d 785 (1995) While the Supreme Court is in as good a position to judge the weight of medical evidence presented by deposition as the Workers’ Compensation Court, that review must be considered in light of the other evidence presented at trial that was relevant to the medical issue. Where claimant’s live testimony was not credited by the Workers’ Compensation Court, and the medical evidence favoring claimant depended on the credibility of his complaints, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that claimant did not prove ongoing connection between his 1988 and 1986 injuries and a back condition commencing in 1993.