Opinion ID: 1704421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Temporary partial.

Text: At the time of Hendrix's injury, SDCL 62-4-5 provided: If, after an injury has been sustained, the employee as a result thereof becomes partially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment, or if he has been released by his physician from temporary total disability and has not been given a rating to which § 62-4-6 would apply, he shall receive compensation, subject to the limitations as to maximum amounts fixed in § 62-4-3, equal to one-half of the difference between the average amount which he earned before the accident, and the average amount which he is earning or able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident. Under this statute, to receive temporary partial benefits, an employee must establish: 1. That he is partially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment due to his work related injury; or 2. That he has been released by his physician from temporary total disability and has not yet been given a permanent partial disability; and 3. That his present average earned income or that amount he is capable of earning at some suitable employment or business is less than what his average earned income was prior to his disability. Caldwell, 489 N.W.2d at 363 (emphasis in original). If the employee makes his requisite showing, then he will receive the difference between his pre- and post-injury average earning amounts, subject to the limitations set forth in SDCL 62-4-3. Id. Department concluded that Hendrix made a prima facie showing of temporary partial disability in that he was partially incapacitated from pursuing his usual and customary line of employment and had not been given a rating. The Department further concluded, however, that suitable employment was and is available on a regular and continuous basis which would have resulted in a comparable wage thereby defeating Hendrix's claim for temporary partial disability benefits. Hendrix argues that this was error. Graham and Travelers respond that the evidence clearly supports the finding that Hendrix failed to establish the third requirement and therefore, he was not entitled to temporary partial disability benefits. Hendrix presented evidence, through the testimony of Ostrander, that he is capable of earning, post-injury, approximately half of what he earned prior to his disability. See Cozine v. Midwest Coast Transport, Inc., 454 N.W.2d 548, 554 (S.D.1990) (Since the statute refers to the amount the employee is able to earn, Cozine satisfied her burden under the statute by introducing evidence of what she was able to earn as a part-time summer worker and a dormitory resident assistant during the period of temporary, partial disability.). To counter Hendrix's evidence, Graham and Travelers must demonstrate that higher earnings would be regularly and continuously available to Hendrix. Id. Department concluded that suitable employment was and is available to Hendrix on a regular and continuous basis which would have resulted in a comparable wage based upon testimony by James Carroll (Carroll) of Karr Rehabilitation, who conducted a labor market survey of Mitchell, South Dakota. This conclusion was based upon Department's finding that at the time of Carroll's survey, Dakota Manufacturing and KMIT Radio had current openings offering comparable salaries. [3] Even Hendrix testified that when he contacted the employers listed on Carroll's report, [s]ome of them indicated that they had jobs open in the past and expected some in the future[.] Although Kevin Culhane (Culhane), president and general manager of KMIT Radio, testified by way of deposition almost one month after the hearing that while a sales position was filled in 1991, it was never advertised, and that KMIT might have two positions available, we cannot say that Department was clearly erroneous in denying temporary, partial disability benefits. See Lawler, 435 N.W.2d at 711 (Morgan, J., concurring specially) ([G]ranted that there is testimony of Dr. Jackson that would support a view contrary to the agency decision, there is also other medical testimony, in the deposition of Dr. Sanmartin, that supports the finding of the agency. Therefore, applying the Phillips & Sons admonition along with the statutory directive that we give the findings and inferences of the agency great weight on questions of fact, I concur in the majority opinion.).