Opinion ID: 1826689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: trial court properly considered medical evidence.

Text: Guthmiller asserts his pre-existing diabetic neuropathy should not preclude his claim for total disability benefits where his job-related injury resulted in a greater impairment. No authority is offered to support this position except This issue is corollary to Issue I. Failure to cite authority is waiver of an argument. SDCL 15-26A-60; Harris v. Young, 473 N.W.2d 141 (S.D. 1991). Nonetheless, this argument fails in three respects. First, as noted in Issue I and in Day, the trial court was proper in considering expert medical testimony. Second, DOT is not challenging the wrist injury, but the claim that a wrist injury causes total disability. Finally, the trial court remanded the case for a reconsideration of a lesser disability. Guthmiller's injury is not being ignored by the courts. Due to our decision in Issue I and Guthmiller's failure to make a causal connection between his injury and his diabetes, we do not reach Issue III or Issue IV. In sum, Guthmiller injured his wrist while at work and claims that this injury worsened his pre-existing diabetic condition. His own doctors would not testify with medical certainty that such a thing could happen, nor would they infer a causal connection between the wrist injury and the diabetic neuropathy, yet he insists that the trial court erred by even allowing such negative testimony. Where the claimant's medical experts are unwilling to express an opinion, this Court will not infer a medical prognosis. Guthmiller simply failed to prove his case. Affirmed. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST and AMUNDSON, JJ., concur. SABERS, J., dissents.