Opinion ID: 2135435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: pain coupled with other factors:

Text: As we stated in Shepherd: The crux of claimant's case for total disability is that he suffers such substantial and frequent pain that he not only cannot physically exert himself but he cannot even sit still or concentrate for more than a few minutes at a time, and that his endurance as well as his daily schedule can vary dramatically depending on whether he is having a good day or a bad day. Claimant argues that because of the overwhelming presence of pain in his life, coupled with his age and educational background, it ought to be manifest that no one is going to hire him for any kind of steady work, and the burden ought to be shifted to his former employer to show the existence of specific jobs in the [Sioux Falls] area suitable to someone with his limitations. 467 N.W.2d at 919. The Department concluded that Petersen failed in his burden of proving that his physical condition, including pain, coupled with his education, training and age made it obvious that he was in the odd-lot category. We agree. The facts in this case deviate considerably from those upon which we relied in Shepherd.
The Shepherd claimant had a general agricultural work history and was 45 years old at the time of his accident, some 21 years older than Petersen at the time of his injury. Petersen was only 29 years old at the time of the Department's initial hearing in 1987, and is still only 35 years old with at least 30 years until general retirement age. Further, while the Shepherd claimant had a high school equivalency degree, Petersen attended and graduated from Sioux Falls Lincoln High School where, as he testified at the 1992 hearing, he was involved in track, football, and cross-country as well as wrestling, where he placed second in state as a sophomore. Our intention here is not to belittle the accomplishments of the claimant in Shepherd, but simply to point out that Petersen's educational background can be characterized as more well rounded. In addition, the evidence showed that Petersen is an intelligent individual who did well in his managerial capacity with Employer and would be intellectually able to complete a college course.
Approximately 6 to 8 months after suffering his injury, the Shepherd claimant independently applied for assistance with the South Dakota Department of Vocational Rehabilitation. This was in addition to the work being done by a private rehabilitation consultant hired by the insurer. Petersen was advised by the Department in its June 1988 Decision, to obtain extensive vocational counseling, and that Claimant should engage in vocational counseling with a serious attempt on the part of the Claimant to determine a new vocation that is appropriate for him within his physical limitations. [9] Petersen then waited some two and a half years before retaining Mr. Richard Ostrander for vocational counseling. Petersen's actions do not evidence someone who is interested in getting rehabilitated vocationally when contrasted with those of the Shepherd claimant. With regards to educational retraining, Petersen gave the following testimony on cross examination at the Department's second hearing in March of 1992: MR. HARALDSON: Now, I asked you in your deposition whether you had any interest or intention of getting a job or being employed, and you said no. Is that your recollection? PETERSEN: Yes. MR. HARALDSON: And I asked you the same question with respect to any interest or intention of getting an education of any kind, and your answer was no. Is that your recollection? PETERSEN: Yes. MR. HARALDSON: I take it you have not pursued, since the deposition of May of `91, any further information or applications concerning education of yourself or any kind of training program as we sit here today? PETERSEN: Well, I don't feel I have the ability to go MR. HARALDSON: Well, is the answer yes or no, you have or you haven't? PETERSEN: I don't feel I have the ability to go to school eight hours a day and, no, I haven't. MR. HARALDSON: So you have not pursued any education programs or information about them? PETERSEN: No. MR. HARALDSON: Now, Drs. Benson and Johnson released you to work or go back to school in 1987. Did you make any efforts between `87 and January of `91 to investigate or enroll or attend any educational or retraining programs during that time? PETERSEN: No. Petersen's testimony is clear that he made no attempt, and had no desire to reeducate himself so that he might become employed again, even though any retraining would have been at Employer's expense.
In Shepherd, the claimant concededly made no efforts to find work. Petersen, on the other hand, did conduct a job search with potential employers prior to the Department's second hearing in 1992. This job search was conducted between October 28, 1991 and November 7, 1991. This brief job search notwithstanding, Petersen has not worked or otherwise attempted to find work since his injury in March of 1983. In addition, there was testimony at the Department's second hearing that Petersen may have sabotaged certain interviews during this job search. Even if this testimony is disregarded, Petersen's own testimony, along with the fact that he has spent less than two weeks actively seeking employment over a ten year period, seriously undermines his sincerity in becoming gainfully employed once again. Finally, we note that even though the claimant in Shepherd did not attempt to find work, he did enter into negotiations to purchase a Black Hills tourist business in 1986. The purchase was never consummated because a fire destroyed the facility which was the subject of the negotiations. Absent this unfortunate situation, the business would undoubtedly have employed the claimant and would have provided him with an independent income.
Employer and Insurer argue that Petersen lacked motivation to become rehabilitated, reeducated or to be gainfully employed once again. In Tiensvold, 464 N.W.2d at 823-24, we held that [a]lthough lack of motivation to work is only one factor to look at when considering if a claimant fits into the `odd-lot' category, we believe it should be examined none the less. We went on to quote from the circuit court's opinion as follows: [T]he question of motivation deals primarily with a claimant's actions after the work-related injury. The issue is whether regular and sustaining work is available to claimant considering his physical condition, age, training and experience. His pre-injury work experience may give some insight into his character for industriousness, but the focal point should be on how he responds to his disability. With this focus in mind, the uncontradicted facts established [claimant] was unmotivated to work or seek rehabilitation after his injury even though his doctor recommended rehabilitation and work on a trial and error basis. [Claimant] abandoned even a pretense of interest in ever working again. (emphasis added). Id. at 824. Again, we refer to Petersen's own testimony where he affirmed his deposition testimony that he had no interest or intention of getting a job or being employed or of getting an education of any kind. His lack of expediency in obtaining vocational counseling after the Department's 1988 Decision also points to a lack of motivation. The most telling evidence on this point appeared in the office notes of Dr. Elkjer, Petersen's family physician, where he stated: He is upset by the fact that his insurance company and lawyer wants him to take another pain clinic. His feeling is that he just wants to [be] left alone on disability. I have tried to talk to him and rationalize with him about the fact that he should be doing as much as he can. He should be giving it every opportunity. Although there was evidence Petersen was not malingering, there is also substantial evidence to support the Department's conclusion that Petersen lacked motivation to become retrained, reeducated or reemployed. Petersen has consistently testified that he did not feel that he could become retrained or reeducated because of his disability. However, in the decade since his injury, he has never attempted to work, enrolled in any university courses, or made an effort to retrain himself vocationally. He is unable to make a showing that he at least tried but, due to his pain, was unable to continue. Instead, he has dismissed all possibilities in advance, stating that he did not believe he could finish any of them.