Opinion ID: 2066654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dakota Truck Underwriters/Bush

Text: [¶ 6.] Everett Bush was employed as a truck driver by Midwest Coast Transport, L.P. On August 28, 1995, Bush reported a work-related injury to his back. Bush was examined and treated by several doctors, but his condition did not improve. Subsequent X-rays revealed Bush had a compression fracture, as well as significant osteopenia. [2] Bone density testing revealed marked osteoporosis. [3] With regard to Bush's condition, Dr. Robert Suga stated, the fracture, in my opinion, would have to be considered a pathologic [4] fracture related to his osteopenia which was documented on bone densitometry. The fracture was however, incurred as a result of his work related activity. [¶ 7.] Bush's workers' compensation claim was settled. The compromise agreement, approved by Department, paid a lump sum of $23,000 in addition to the disability already paid. The lump sum also includes $1,400 as an advance toward future medical expenses. Total indemnity benefits paid to Bush over the course of the claim were $33,616.64 and total medical expenses were $2,810.99. [¶ 8.] DTU filed a claim for reimbursement from SIF. SIF denied DTU's claim under the rationale that no disability or impairment rating existed that was attributable to the preexisting condition of osteopenia and, as a result, there had been no subsequent injury to the employee. [¶ 9.] CRE and DTU filed a petition for hearing with Department on December 5, 1996. [5] Department determined that, under the 1995 amendment to SDCL 62-4-34, a preexisting injury need not have resulted in a disability to obtain reimbursement from the SIF. Therefore, Department approved CRE and DTU's claims for reimbursement. The circuit court affirmed. SIF now appeals, raising the following issues for review: [¶ 10.] 1. Whether an eligible claim for reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund must show that a prior injury or preexisting condition be of a disabling quality. [¶ 11.] 2. Whether claimants have demonstrated that their respective employees have received subsequent injuries within the meaning of the Subsequent Injury Fund.