Opinion ID: 900362
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Undiscovered or Unanticipated Consequence

Text: [¶ 15.] When an injured worker seeks to reopen a settlement which includes a waiver of future rights, the focus is on whether the asserted change in condition derives from an injury unknown at the time of the settlement or from a known injury with its disabling character unknown. Novak, Mills, supra . C & R contends imminent problems resulting from Sopko's seizure activity were clearly contemplated, anticipated, and foreseeable at the time of the settlement agreement. The Department, however, concluded Sopko had not foreseen a permanent disability at the time of the settlement in August, 1981: the first time the Employee discovered that the seizure activity... might be related to the 1974 accident was when Dr. Gates rendered his opinion, following the right temporal lobectomy, that he believed the seizure activity was related to the scar tissue he had observed during the lobectomy.... [¶ 16.] The Department also found that Sopko had met his burden of showing a change in condition. Unanticipated development of scar tissue had worsened Sopko's condition giving the Department jurisdiction to reopen the initial claim. Additionally, and in line with this Court's reasoning in Mills, the resulting consequences of [the] initial injury were not discoverable until sometime in the future. 442 N.W.2d at 246. We cannot say these findings were clearly erroneous. As the wording of the release states, even Sopko's physicians were unable to assign a percentage of permanent disability resulting from the initial injury. The consequences of Sopko's injury were not discoverable or anticipated until sometime in the future, therefore Novak and Mills expressly permit reopening and modification pursuant to SDCL 62-7-33. [7] [¶ 17.] When deposed, Sopko's attorney at the time of the 1981 settlement conceded he could not have proved the seizures were related to the 1974 injury. Thus C & R contends the Department was without jurisdiction to hear the petition to reopen as the seizure condition was unrelated to the 1974 injury and, as such, a noncompensable condition. First, it has never been disputed that the 1974 injury was compensable. The only question was the extent of injury and disability. Second, nowhere in the settlement agreement does it state the seizures were unrelated to the work accident. The settlement agreement speaks for itself. Quick v. Bakke, Kopp, Ballou, & McFarlin, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 364, 366 (S.D.1986)(Parol evidence is not admissible where the agreement to be interpreted is integrated, unambiguous and the parties' intent clear). We are not concerned with discovering latent understandings, if to do so would controvert the terms of an unambiguous writing. Lee v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. No. 51-4, 526 N.W.2d 738, 740 (S.D.1995); SDCL 53-8-5. [¶ 18.] Citing Professor Larson's treatise, C & R argues that had the parties proceeded with a full adjudication of the facts instead of settling the claim in 1981, there would have been a formal determination by the Department that Sopko's seizure condition was not compensable. Perhaps, but we cannot decide this matter based on what might have happened. The cited portion from Larson states: If the original award held that there was no connection between the accident and claimant's permanent disability, there is nothing to reopen, and claimant cannot retry the issue of work-connection through the device of a reopening petition. 8 Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 81.32(a). Nothing in the release suggests lack of work connection, only lack of any permanent disability. C & R's quote from Larson's comes from the section dealing with what issues are relevant to change of condition reopenings. In the very next section, Larson states [b]ut if [the claimant] does not know of the other injuries at the time of the original claim, [claimant] is not barred from asserting them in [a] reopening petition.... The case is the same if the claimant knew of the existence of the trouble but not of its disabling character. Id. § 81.32(b). [¶ 19.] As the Department correctly held, the settlement agreement cannot deprive it of jurisdiction otherwise conferred by statute in these circumstances. The Department found Sopko's physical condition substantially changed from the time the 1981 settlement was executed and C & R has failed to establish such findings of fact were clearly erroneous. [¶ 20.] Affirmed. [¶ 21.] MILLER, C.J., and SABERS, AMUNDSON and GILBERTSON, JJ., concur.