Opinion ID: 1704421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether Department erred in determining the permanent partial disability percentage.

Text: Hendrix argues that Department's determination of a five percent permanent partial disability is clearly erroneous. Initially we note that the circuit court remanded the permanent partial disability determination for reconsideration in accordance with Caldwell, 489 N.W.2d 353, 362 (holding that a disability rating due to a loss of use of a body member can, under the provisions of SDCL 62-4-6, only be considered in the context of what effect it would have on the employee's income-earning capability and that any effect it has on his personal life or social life is not a relevant consideration). Upon remand, Department eliminated its consideration of Hendrix's personal and social impairment and reduced the disability rating from five to four percent. (We note that Finding of Fact LVIII states: Claimant must limit his lifting in all aspects of his life and personally limits his driving.) Under SDCL 62-4-6, an employee shall receive compensation for the loss of a part of the body or its loss of use. Cozine, 454 N.W.2d at 551. It is the responsibility of the hearing examiner to determine if, and to what extent, a claimant has suffered the loss of use of a body part, based upon the evidence as a whole. Id. at 551-552. Although the medical impairment rating given by a doctor is an important factor, the extent of loss of use does not necessarily equal the extent of medical impairment. Id. at 552. The hearing examiner should consider other evidence, such as the testimony of a vocational expert regarding loss of employability. Id. In determining permanent partial disability, Department found that Ostrander's assignment of a 65 percent loss of employability and earning capacity was offset by the lack of an impairment rating and the fact that Hendrix was able to earn comparable wages in other positions. As noted above, it was the responsibility of the hearing examiner to determine to what extent Hendrix suffered the loss of use of a body part based upon the evidence as a whole. Suitable employment was and is available to Hendrix on a regular and continuous basis which would have resulted in a comparable wage. Hendrix has failed to demonstrate that Department was clearly erroneous in awarding permanent partial disability benefits based upon a four percent disability. [4] We affirm. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., concurs in result.