Opinion ID: 1289978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Baker made a prima facie case under the odd-lot doctrine?

Text: Under SDCL 1-26-36, we will not disturb the agency's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Petersen v. Hinky Dinky, 515 N.W.2d 226, 231 (S.D. 1994). Conclusions of law are fully reviewable. Id. (citing Permann v. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113 (S.D. 1987)). Determining whether a claimant is in the odd-lot category, permanent total disability, is a question of fact. Id. (citing Shepherd v. Moorman Mfg., 467 N.W.2d 916, 919 (S.D. 1991)). [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 (citation 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, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, § 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 919-20. The examiner found that Baker failed to show that his pain was severe and debilitating. The examiner noted three specific reasons: 1. Baker maintained steady employment for several months at the parts counter, with only one instance where he was unable to show up for work due to pain. He worked approximately twenty hours per week and occasionally worked up to thirty hours per week. 2. Baker was able to assist with the moving and repair of a house and ride his motorcycle. [2] 3. The medical testimony did not reveal that Baker is  totally unable to work [.] The examiner also found that being unable to return to full-time work did not automatically entitle Baker to odd-lot benefits. To make a prima facie case for odd-lot benefits, a claimant must show that he is experiencing continuous, severe and debilitating pain[.] Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919 (citations omitted); see also Wendel v. Domestic Seed & Supply, 446 N.W.2d 265, 270 (S.D.1989) (citing City of Casper v. Bowdish, 713 P.2d 763, 766 (Wyo.1986) (determination of whether claimant is suffering obvious disability is a factual determination and will not be disturbed if substantial evidence supports the finding)). The examiner found that Baker made a showing of constant pain but not that it was severe or debilitating; therefore, he was not obviously unemployable. The examiner is not bound to accept the testimony of claimant and may weigh conflicting testimony. Kennedy v. Hubbard Milling Co., 465 N.W.2d 792, 796 (S.D.1991). If the examiner chose not to believe Baker then it would follow that his testimony on debilitating pain could also be discredited. Id. at 796. Here, it appears the examiner chose to believe the testimony of William Trent, who observed Baker doing several physical tasks without apparent difficulty. [3] Substantial evidence in the record supports the examiner's finding that Baker is not entitled to any odd-lot category benefits. We will not disturb the examiner's finding because there is substantial evidence in the record to support that claimant does not experience the kind of pain he claims. Shepherd, 467 N.W.2d at 919-920. We reverse. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur.