Opinion ID: 2135435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: continuous, severe and debilitating pain

Text: In the alternative, Petersen could make a prima facie case for odd-lot benefits based on our holding in Shepherd, by showing that he suffered continuous, severe and debilitating pain. As we stated therein: A worker's compensation claimant who persuades the trier of fact that he is in the kind of continuous, severe and debilitating pain which [claimant] claims 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. Here, Department was not persuaded by claimant. Therefore, our clearly erroneous review of Department's determination resolves itself into 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? If there is, we must uphold the Department's determination. 467 N.W.2d at 919-20. Petersen argues that the pain he suffers is real, severe and debilitating, thereby causing him to be unemployable. The Department was not persuaded that Petersen suffered pain to the extent which he claimed. We agree. The Department, as the fact finder, may properly weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Wendel, 446 N.W.2d at 271. The Department is not required to accept the testimony of the claimant and is free to choose between conflicting testimony. Kennedy, 465 N.W.2d at 796. In his consultation notes dated April 4, 1984, Dr. O.V. Opheim wrote, there is a lack of objective neurologic findings to support the pain distribution complained of by Petersen. Dr. Johnson's office notes of November 21, 1984 state: He moves very slowly and deliberately today and I noticed that he did run up and down the stairs very nicely at the Dakota Dome at the Championship game between Yankton and O'Gorman, he was sitting about 4 rows behind me. Evidence was presented at the 1987 hearing that Petersen had intentionally tried to manipulate the results of the first FCA which was performed by Mr. Philip Moe. This test was considered invalid due to inconsistencies in Petersen's pain behaviors and pain reports. In his deposition on September 18, 1991, Dr. Dickinson, Petersen's psychologist, testified that he agreed that Petersen's behavior was more demonstrative of pain than would be expected given his physical condition. Testimony was also given by Dr. Elkjer, Petersen's family physician, that there is a large functional overlay involved in his pain, and that he concurred with Dr. Opheim's opinion of a lack of objective neurologic findings. Several of Petersen's examining physicians released him for light-sedentary work with limitations on lifting including Dr. Gail Benson, the surgeon who performed the luque loop surgery. Dr. Benson released Petersen for work in 1987 and again on September 12, 1991. The 1991 release was for work activity within the limits of the June 11, 1991 FCA performed by Philip Moe. Petersen argued that the FCA did not take into account the factor of pain and was thus not a valid measure of his ability to work. However at the 1992 hearing, Mr. Moe testified that pain is certainly a factor in the FCA. This is because the patient self-selects the point at which his pain causes him to be unable to continue an activity. Those activities a patient can engage in before pain causes him to be unable to continue are the basis for assessing a patient's functional capacities and ultimately his employability. As discussed above, there was testimony that Petersen was directly employable in the Sioux Falls job market within the restrictions found in the two FCAs conducted in 1991. From this the Department could properly conclude that Petersen did not suffer pain to the extent he claimed. Finally we note that the Department's hearing officer had an opportunity to observe Petersen not only during his testimony at the March 1992 hearing, but throughout the entire hearing which lasted from 9:00 a.m. until 3:43 p.m. During that time, which parallels a normal working day, Petersen was continually present and subject to the normal constraints and demands inherent in sedentary or light-duty employment. The Department found that Petersen's claim that he was suffering continuous, severe and debilitating pain was not persuasive. We have held that `it is incumbent upon this Court to be duly aware of the opportunity of the trial court to judge at first hand the credibility of the witnesses.' Matter of J.M.V.D., 285 N.W.2d 853, 855 (S.D.1979) ( quoting Cooper v. Hileman, 88 S.D. 516, 518, 222 N.W.2d 299, 300 (1974)). We place these limitations on the appellate court since 'the trial court because of its observation of the witnesses and their demeanor is in a better position than we are to evaluate the persuasiveness of their testimony.' Matter of J.M.V.D., supra , ( quoting State Automobile Casualty Under. v. Ruotsalainen, 81 S.D. 472, 478, 136 N.W.2d 884, 888 (1965)). Similar deference should be given to the Department hearing officer acting as the fact finder. Accordingly, the Department's finding that it was not persuaded by Petersen's claim that he suffers continuous, severe and debilitating pain will not be disturbed. We do not wish to appear unsympathetic to Mr. Petersen's condition. The evidence is undisputed that he suffers from a legitimate disability. The dispute, however, is not whether Mr. Petersen has some disability. The dispute is whether Mr. Petersen presented sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that he is totally disabled. We are mindful that our task is not to substitute our judgment for that of the Department as to issues of fact. Our standard of review limits us to decide whether the Department's determination that Mr. Petersen is not permanently and totally disabled is supported by substantial evidence. Because Petersen's physical condition, including pain, coupled with his age, training and experience, does not make it obvious that he is in the odd-lot total disability category, and because substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Department's finding that Petersen's pain is not continuous, severe and debilitating, we conclude that the Department was not clearly erroneous in finding that Petersen failed to make a prima facie case for total disability under the odd-lot doctrine. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., concur. LOVRIEN, Circuit Judge, for AMUNDSON, J., disqualified.