Opinion ID: 2028102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Welch is entitled to permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot category?

Text: Welch claims he is no longer able to perform duties of a mechanic and other jobs do not have comparable wages, rendering him totally disabled. [A] person is totally disabled if his physical condition, in combination with his age, training, and experience, and the type of work available in his community, causes him to be unable to secure anything more than sporadic employment resulting in an insubstantial income. Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 918 (citations omitted). The burden is on the claimant to make a prima facie showing of total disability. Id. If it is obvious that claimant is in the odd-lot category, then the burden shifts to the employer to show that suitable employment is available in the community for persons with claimant's limitations. Id. If it is not obvious that the claimant is in the odd-lot category, then the burden remains with the claimant to demonstrate the unavailability of suitable employment by showing that he has unsuccessfully made `reasonable efforts' to find work. Id. (citing 2 Larson, supra at § 57.61(d)). When an employee is unable to return to his former occupation because he is unable to perform the duties required of him due to the fact that he experiences substantial pain while so engaged, he is entitled to permanent and total disability benefits[.] . . . . . A ... claimant who persuades the trier of fact that he is in ... continuous, severe and debilitating pain ... has made a prima facie case that he is in the odd-lot category, and the burden then shifts to the employer to show availability of suitable work. Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Our review of Department's determination compels this question: Is there any substantial evidence in the record that supports the Department's conclusion that claimant does not experience the kind of pain which he claims? Id. at 920. Substantial evidence was presented that Welch did not suffer from continuous, severe and debilitating pain which prevents him from performing the duties of a mechanic. Id. The examiner denied odd-lot category benefits because he found Welch to be a malingerer. One doctor indicated that there was no reason Welch could not perform the functions of a mechanic. Several people observed Welch doing mechanical work without visible pain or difficulty after his injury. In February of 1991, his landlord saw him doing mechanical work without apparent difficulty, and Welch admitted to him that he was getting better. The Chief of Police of Lemmon, while serving process on two occasions, observed Welch using wrenches. The Chief routinely observed Welch doing mechanical work at his shop. He also observed Welch using a ratchet with his right hand on another occasion. Another police officer serving process observed Welch using a rachet, probably with his right hand, with no visible evidence of pain. Welch told the officer that he had overhauled and rebuilt an engine on a pickup he was trying to sell. Approximately three weeks before the hearing, the officer observed Welch carrying automotive parts without any apparent difficulty. [5] Both officers observed Welch performing several physical tasks without any visible pain or difficulty until a few weeks before the hearing. It is up to the trier of fact to weigh the testimony, resolve conflicting testimony, and evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Kennedy v. Hubbard Milling Co., 465 N.W.2d 792, 795 (S.D.1991). We will not usurp the function of the trier of fact. See Id. Welch argues that the examiner did not correctly follow SDCL 62-4-6, and Cozine v. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc., 454 N.W.2d 548 (S.D.1990), which require the examiner to consider the evidence as a whole when calculating the amount of compensation for loss of use of a part of the body. The examiner must consider more than the medical impairment rating; other factors such as the testimony of vocational experts regarding loss of employability, and other testimony must be considered to determine loss of use. Id. at 552. The construction and application of statutes are questions of law which are reviewed de novo. Brown v. Egan Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 50-2, 449 N.W.2d 259, 260 (S.D.1989). Welch claims the examiner should consider his actual disability and vocational loss based upon the likelihood of his future unemployment and his limitation of access to jobs paying wages comparable to the wages he previously earned. The examiner considered the testimony of vocational experts, medical experts, and the testimony of Welch and other witnesses to determine Welch's physical condition had not substantially changed and he was able to perform as a mechanic. Although the examiner did not specifically state he was following Cozine, 454 N.W.2d 548, he considered those factors in his decision, in addition to the impairment rating. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding that Welch is not entitled to any odd-lot category benefits. Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919-20. Welch has failed to show this finding to be clearly erroneous. We have considered Welch's other claims and consider them to be without merit. [6] We affirm. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur.