Opinion ID: 900615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Obvious Unemployability

Text: [¶ 14.] We have previously held, [a] claimant can establish obvious unemployability by showing either that his physical condition along with his education and training make it obvious that he is in the odd-lot total disability category, or by convincing the trier of fact that he suffers the kind of continuous, severe, and debilitating pain which he claims. Wagaman, 1998 SD 27, ¶ 22, 576 N.W.2d at 242. The ALJ found that [t]he evidence presented at the hearing [did] not establish that Belhassen is obviously unemployable. The ALJ noted that Ostrander, who stated that Belhassen was obviously unemployable, was not aware of Belhassen's history as a truck driver and did not consider the employment possibilities occasioned by that experience. The ALJ further held that because Belhassen was able to perform full-time work with John Morrell, that was proof that he was not obviously unemployable. Finally, ALJ noted, [w]hile I believe Belhassen's general assertion of pain, I do not believe all of his reporting of pain is accurate. I make this assessment based on the medical records and my own observations of [Belhassen] during the hearing. Simply put, I do not believe Belhassen's assertion that he is in such severe and debilitating pain that he is permanently, totally disabled. His ability to perform the boxing and blade retrim work at John Morrell belies any claim of such debilitating pain. [¶ 15.] Belhassen contends that he is obviously unemployable for the following reasons: (1) he cannot read, write, speak or understand English; (2) he has a light duty work restriction with limited twisting and bending; (3) Belhassen's treating physician testified that Belhassen needs the option of sitting or standing when needed; (4) Belhassen has a standing limitation of thirty minutes and a sitting limitation of sixty minutes; (5) Belhassen's prior work experience consists of office cleaner and a van driver, both of which Belhassen argues are not transferable skills; and (6) Belhassen has only a fifth grade education. Belhassen also argues that his vocational expert's Ostrander's testimony supports his argument that he is obviously unemployable. Ostrander had stated in his testimony, I think it is an obvious situation. I don't think there is anything that can reasonably be done to help him be employable. That is, I don't think there is any type of rehabilitation that will succeed. What we have is a 51-year old man who does not speak English, who is poorly educated even in his native third world country and has no English skills. [¶ 16.] John Morrell argues that Belhassen was not obviously unemployable because there was no reason Belhassen could not work or look for work. In support of this argument, John Morrell emphasizes that Dr. Cass and Dr. Hoversten both had approved the retrim blade meat job at John Morrell for Belhassen. In addition, Dr. Cass testified that there was no medical reason that Belhassen could not be working or looking for work. Finally, John Morrell contends that the Department was correct in rejecting Ostrander's expert opinions because he was not aware of the significant facts. Ostrander, who had evaluated Belhassen's work skills and employability, noted in his report that Belhassen's only prior work experience in Libya was as an office cleaner. Ostrander had testified that he had no knowledge that Belhassen was in the military or that he had driven a van in the Libyan army. [¶ 17.] It is our well-settled rule that `[d]ue regard shall be given to the opportunity of the agency to judge the credibility of the witness.' Kurtz, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 12, 576 N.W.2d at 883 (quoting Bonnett v. Custer Lumber Corp., 528 N.W.2d 393, 396 (S.D.1995) (citation omitted)). We have often stated that [t]he value of the opinion of an expert witness is no better than the facts upon which it is based.... The credibility of witnesses and the evidentiary value of their testimony falls solely within the province of the [fact finder]. Bridge v. Karl's, Inc., 538 N.W.2d 521, 525 (S.D.1995). `The trier of fact is free to accept all of, part of, or none of, an expert's opinion.' Kester v. Colonial Manor of Custer, 1997 SD 127, ¶ 24, 571 N.W.2d 376, 380 (quoting Hanson v. Penrod Constr. Co., 425 N.W.2d 396, 398 (S.D.1988) (citations omitted)). Further, Department `is not required to accept the testimony of the claimant and is free to choose between conflicting testimony.' Wagaman, 1998 SD 27, ¶ 29, 576 N.W.2d at 242-43 (quoting Petersen, 515 N.W.2d at 235 (citation & internal quotation omitted)). [¶ 18.] In the present case, the ALJ had the opportunity to hear the testimony from Ostrander and Belhassen and concluded that their testimony was not credible. After reviewing the record and the ALJ's decision, we find no mistake in the ALJ's decision. Belhassen continually emphasized his lack of education and inability to communicate in the English language as support for his obvious unemployability. The trier of fact did not accept claimant's and expert's testimony as credible, as is within its discretion. Belhassen has failed to convince this Court that a mistake was made.