Opinion ID: 1826689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: trial court applied the proper standard.

Text: Guthmiller submits that the trial court applied an improper standard by requiring medical testimony that his injury caused or contributed to his total disability. Under 62-1-1(2), injuries arising out of and in the course of employment are compensable. This Court, following the same course as the trial court, must determine if Guthmiller's injuries arose out of the course of employment. Both parties agree that the wrist was injured on the job. However, Guthmiller claims the wrist injury exacerbated his 50 year diabetic affliction, leaving him permanently and totally disabled. To receive permanent total disability, SDCL 62-4-6(23) requires either the loss of both arms or an injury which totally incapacitates an employee, preventing him from working at his occupation. Where the nature and effect of an injury is plainly apparent, an expert's opinion is not required to establish a causal relationship. Day at 723. An injury to one arm does not constitute a loss of both arms nor should it totally incapacitate. This Court, like the trial court, requires expert opinion to show a causal connection between the injury to the left wrist and the total incapacitation. SDCL 19-15-2; State v. Hill, 463 N.W.2d 674, 676 (S.D.1990). Although both the wrist injury and the diabetic neuropathy impact the upper left extremity, and one doctor testified that the injury did affect Guthmiller's control of diabetes for a few weeks, none of Guthmiller's three medical doctors would testify that such a causal connection existed. All medical evidence in this case was produced through deposition. In Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co., 489 N.W.2d 353, 358 (S.D.1992), we stated, The burden of proof rests upon claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to establish a right to compensation. See also, Mehlum v. Nunda Cooperative Ass'n, 74 S.D. 545, 56 N.W.2d 282 (1952). A worker's compensation award cannot be based on possibilities or probabilities, but must be based on sufficient evidence that the claimant incurred a disability arising out of and in the course of employment. Day at 724; Wold v. Meilman Food Industries, 269 N.W.2d 112, 116 (S.D.1978). Medical testimony to the effect that it is possible that a given injury caused a subsequent disability is insufficient, standing alone, to establish the causal relation under worker's compensation. Day at 724; Caldwell at 358; Wold at 116. Worker's compensation trades off the concept of tort liability or fault where the injury arises out of the course of employment. Because worker's compensation is an exclusive remedy purposely omitted from the realm of tort law, it follows that a tort standard (medical probability) would not be applied. As noted above, we seek a causal relation. We further note that Guthmiller had previously testified before the Social Security Administration seeking disability and professed that the reason for leaving his job was primarily due to diabetes and its complications only, not the wrist injury. This Court has repeatedly held that a party cannot claim the benefit of a version of the facts more favorable than given in testimony. State v. Jacobson, 491 N.W.2d 455 (S.D.1992); Waddell v. Dewey County Bank, 471 N.W.2d 591 (S.D.1991); Lalley v. Safway Steel Scaffolds, Inc., 364 N.W.2d 139 (S.D.1985); Myers v. Lennox Co-op. Ass'n, 307 N.W.2d 863 (S.D.1981); Swee v. Myrl & Roy's Paving, Inc., 283 N.W.2d 570 (S.D.1979); Miller v. Stevens, 63 S.D. 10, 256 N.W. 152 (1934). Guthmiller has failed to meet the burden required to substantiate his right to compensation. Based upon the lack of expert testimony linking diabetes to a wrist injury, we are left with a firm and definite conviction that the agency's finding of permanent total disability was a mistake. Day at 723.