Opinion ID: 2028102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Welch proved the necessary change of condition to increase permanent partial disability benefits?

Text: Welch claims his 3 percent increase in impairment, increased pain, inability to find suitable employment, and inability to recover as expected constitute a change in condition under SDCL 62-7-33. [3] Worker's compensation statutes are liberally construed in favor of injured employees. Mills v. Spink Elec. Co-op., 442 N.W.2d 243, 246 (S.D.1989). In interpreting change in condition, we have stated: The `change in condition' which justifies reopening and modification is ordinarily a change, for better or worse in claimant's physical condition. This change may take such forms as progression, deterioration, or aggravation of the compensable condition, achievement of disabling character by a previously symptomatic complaint, appearance of new and more serious features, such as discovery of a disc herniation in a back case, failure to recover within the time originally predicted, and superimposition or worsening of a neurotic condition. 3 Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 81.31(a) (1988). Id. (emphasis added) (claimant sought unanticipated medical expenses due to change in physical condition, so Department could reopen). The examiner found and the circuit court affirmed that reopening was not warranted. Welch admitted that he could do the same work as he could at the time of the Memorandum: Q. Jim, is there anything you can't do now that you could when you signed the [Memorandum]? A. Probably about the same. [A] party cannot claim the benefit of a version of the facts more favorable than given in testimony. Guthmiller v. South Dakota Dept. of Transp., 502 N.W.2d 586, 589 (S.D. 1993) (citations omitted). By his own testimony, Welch had not experienced a substantial change in condition. Medical testimony revealed that the 3 percent increase was due to Welch's complaints and not due to any objective increase in impairment. Medical testimony also indicated that Welch had not experienced a change in physical condition following the 27 percent impairment rating. Dr. Anderson stated that his actual physical impairment did not change at all from 1990 to 1992, the year of the hearing. He stated that the increase in numbers is based primarily on increase in subjective complaints of pain and discomfort. [4] The examiner found that Welch's complaints were purely subjective and did not constitute a material and substantial physical change in condition. See Whitney, 453 N.W.2d at 852; see also Wilson Concrete Co. v. Rork, 216 Neb. 447, 343 N.W.2d 764, 767 (1984) (some additional pain from the injury was insufficient to show a material and substantial change for the worse in his condition); but see Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919 (debilitating pain may place claimant in odd-lot category for total disability benefits). As long as there is some substantial evidence in the record to support the examiner's finding, we will affirm it. Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919-920. Welch has not shown this finding to be error.