Opinion ID: 901534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: [¶13.] Whether Department erred in determining that Horn's employment or work related injury was not a major contributing cause of his disability. [¶14.] Horn had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence all the facts essential to compensation. Grauel, 2000 SD 145, ¶11, 619 NW2d at 263 (quoting Westergren v. Baptist Hosp., 1996 SD 69, ¶10, 549 NW2d 390, 393). Our law requires a claimant to establish that his injury arose out of his employment by showing a causal connection between his employment and the injury sustained. Id. (citations omitted). The employment need not be the direct nor proximate cause of the injury in order to establish this causal connection, but rather must be shown to be a contributing factor to the injury. Id. ; Gilchrist v. Trail King Industries, Inc., 2000 SD 68, ¶18, 612 NW2d 1, 5-6. The claimant also must prove by a preponderance of medical evidence, that the employment or employment related injury was a major contributing cause of the impairment or disability. [4] Arends v. Dacotah Cement, 2002 SD 57, ¶15, 645 NW2d 583, 588; Grauel, 2000 SD 145, ¶19, 619 NW2d at 265. The evidence necessary to support an award must not be speculative, but rather must be precise and well supported. Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation, 2002 SD 141, ¶16, 654 NW2d 215, 219; Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶16, 597 NW2d 677, 681. [¶15.] Department correctly determined, and Horn does not contest Department's ruling, that the July 7, 2000, injury temporarily caused a short term need for treatment, but was not a major contributing cause of Horn's current disability. Dr. Benson's IME Report stated that both the 1997 and 2000 injuries were unrelated to his current complaints which Dr. Benson reaffirmed in his deposition testimony. Dr. Benson's opinions were consistent with the opinions of Dr. Farnham in his report that the July 7, 2000, injury caused a temporary exacerbation of Horn's low back pain, but did not independently contribute to his current impairment or disability relative to his low back. [¶16.] Horn argues that the July 7, 2000, injury was only one of a number of cumulative injuries he sustained at Dakota Pork and Riverside from his years of repetitive bending and lifting; ultimately leading to the degeneration of his disc. This Court has approved an award of compensation to claimants, even though they cannot prove any specific trauma, if they prove a history of injury to the body that occurs in the normal course of employment. St. Luke's Midland Regional Medical Center v. Kennedy, 2002 SD 137, ¶11, 653 NW2d 880, 884. [¶17.] Horn asserts that Dr. Benson's testimony established the compensability of this claim. Dr. Benson diagnosed Horn with ankylosing spondylitis and degeneration of the spinal disc. Dr. Benson attributed the former to a pre-existing genetic condition unrelated to Horn's work and the latter to long term spinal changes from repetitive lifting and bending over his lifetime. Horn points to the following specific portion of Dr. Benson's testimony in support of the compensability of his degenerative disc condition: Q: The second disorder, the degenerative disc problem, is that problem, how did that come about from a pathologic standpoint, is that something that was contributed to over the years by his bending, lifting and stooping work activities? A: That's very likely and probable but how to pin that down to a certain event is very difficult. You can look at x-rays as you go along and see if it's been preexisting. That's the only other way I know. . . . Q: And just so that I keep that straight, this man worked at one place from 1990 to 1997, seven years, and I can represent to you that he worked, this was at Dakota Pork where he did a significant amount of twisting, bending and stooping, although the lifting that he did wasn't all that heavy but it was continuous. Then after that he worked for a three-year period from about 1997 or 1998, about a two year period, from 1997 to '98 where he was doing a welding job that I don't believe there was a lot of heavy lifting there either but there was a lot of lifting, bending and stooping. Are you going to be able to tell us which one of those two positions, the first seven years at Dakota Pork or the last two years at Riverside Manufacturing, which one of those two working positions or the work activities, would you be able to tell us which one of those places the work activities were a major contributing cause of the progression of the degenerative disc disease, Doctor? . . . A: I cannot be specific on that issue. Q: Would it be your opinion that both of those previous employments then contributed on an equal basis to the progression of the disease, Doctor? . . . A: I believe all of these repetitive jobs are contributory, but I would place that over a lifetime rather than just over a ten-year period. Q: . . . the part that I'm struggling with, Doctor, is this gentleman was able to work and then at some point got into a situation where he was no longer able to continue to work, and I guess the question we have for you is whether the cumulative work activities over the last ten years, were those activities, it doesn't have to be `the' major contributing factor but simply a major contributing factor in his resultant disability and the reason he's not working today? A: Oh, I believe it is a contributing factor. Q: And I know this gets a little difficult and I know it's not an exact science, but is it fair for me to state that you're not able to quantify from a percentage standpoint if we were trying to apportion it how much of this problem is related to his first seven years at Dakota Pork and the following two, two and a half years at Riverside Manufacturing? Are you able to apportion that for us, Doctor? A: I don't believe so. [¶18.] This testimony suggested that Horn's employment history involving repetitive lifting, bending and stooping contributed to his degenerative disc. However, Dr. Benson was unable to state that Horn's degenerative disc or his employment was a major contributing cause of his current disability. When Dr. Benson was specifically asked by Horn's counsel whether the repetitive twisting, bending, stooping and lifting at either Dakota Pork or Riverside was a major contributing cause of his condition, Dr. Benson stated, I cannot be specific on that issue. When asked again if the work activities at Dakota Pork or Riverside were a major contributing cause of his disability and the reason he is not working today, Dr. Benson could only state, Oh, I believe it is a contributing factor. [¶19.] This testimony failed to prove that Horn's degenerative disc injury was a major contributing cause of his existing disability. See Haynes, 2004 SD 99, ¶17, 686 NW2d at 661; Grauel, 2000 SD 145, ¶17, 619 NW2d at 265. As this Court has previously stated: [t]he mere occurrence of an injury at work does not mean it is ipso facto work-related and the employee has the burden to establish that the work injury was a major contributing cause of the disability. Grauel, 2000 SD 145, ¶19, 619 NW2d at 265. [¶20.] Horn also argues that Department erred in determining that he did not have a compensable injury under subsection (b) or (c) of SDCL 62-1-1(7). While both subsection (b) and subsection (c) deal with preexisting injuries, the distinction turns on what factors set the preexisting injury into motion; if a preexisting condition is the result of an occupational injury then subsection (c) controls, if the preexisting condition developed outside of the occupational setting then subsection (b) controls Byrum, 2002 SD 141, ¶15, 654 NW2d at 218. [¶21.] In support of the showing under subsection (b), Horn cites the following portion of Dr. Benson's testimony: Q: Is it a combination of the degenerative disc and the ankylosing spondylitis that is the combination of the two of them that are keeping this gentleman from being able to work and function today, Doctor? A: I believe so. Q: And just so the Department keeps this clear, the ankylosing spondylitis is not contributed to by the work activities but the degenerative disc disease and multilevel changes that he had in his lumbar spine, that is contributed to more likely than not by the work activities over the years. Is that a fair statement, Doctor? A: Yes. . . . Q: Would you agree with me that it would be the combination of both of these conditions together then that would be a major contributing factor for his pain symptoms? A: Very likely. [¶22.] It is undisputed from Dr. Benson's testimony that the ankylosing spondylitis was unrelated to Horn's employment. Dr. Benson testified that the combination of the non-occupational ankylosing spondylitis and the work related degenerative disc condition was a major contributing factor for Horn's pain symptoms. However, SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b) requires a showing that the employment or employment related injury is and remains a major contributing cause of Horn's disability or impairment. Dr Benson's testimony failed to establish that either the degenerative disc or Horn's employment, itself, was a major contributing cause of Horn's current disability or impairment. [¶23.] Horn cites Arends, 2002 SD 57, 645 NW2d 583 in support of his claim that the degeneration of his disc is a compensable work injury. In Arends, the claimant was employed for over thirty years in a job involving repetitive stooping and kneeling on concrete. The claimant injured his knee in a non-work accident requiring arthroscopic surgery. The arthroscopic surgery revealed both an acute injury involving torn cartilage and a chronic injury involving degeneration of the cartilage and patella. The surgeon opined that the degeneration was abnormally advanced for a forty-eight year old and was caused by the accumulation of trauma from the claimant's years of work activities. The treating physician testified that the work activity was a major contributing cause of this knee injury. Department awarded the claimant permanent total disability benefits. This Court affirmed stating: The condition, or loss produced by the injury, is the physical impairment caused by Arends' degenerative osteoarthritis. Findings taken from MRI, arthroscopic surgery, and the examinations of both doctors demonstrate to a reasonable medical probability that Arends' chronic condition was not caused by one acute injury; rather, it was caused by the cumulative trauma from years of bending, stooping and kneeling on concrete. Therefore, unlike the claimant in Grauel, Arends has met his burden of demonstrating that the repetitive work at Dacotah caused him injuries which, in turn, were a major contributing cause of his disability. Given this evidence, we are not firmly convinced that a mistake has been made and we will not overturn the Department's ruling. Arends, 2002 SD 57, ¶16, 645 NW2d at 588 (citations omitted). [¶24.] In Arends the opinion testimony as to the employment related causation of the claimant's degenerative condition and his resulting disability was well supported. In contrast Dr. Benson did not provide a medical opinion that Horn's degenerative disc was a major contributing cause of his disability. Moreover, Dr. Benson testified that more than 80 percent of the general population has degenerative disc changes over time. Horn was sixty-one at the time of Dr. Benson's last examination and the medical testimony did not establish that the extent of his degeneration was abnormal for his age. Rather, Dr. Farnham opined that the degeneration was consistent with age. Further, Dr. Benson's IME Report stated that Horn's current back pain was due to ankylosing spondilitis and the doctor reaffirmed in his deposition that the ankylosing spondilitis was causing Horn more problems than the spinal degeneration. [¶25.] The evidentiary basis to support a compensable claim under subsection (c) of SDCL 62-1-1(7) was also lacking. Horn argues that his degenerative disc was work related and pre-existed his employment at Dakota Pork and/or Riverside and was subsequently aggravated by this employment. However, the threshold showing for a claim under subsection (c) of SDCL 62-1-1(7) required Horn to show a preexisting work related compensable injury, disability, or impairment[.] While there was evidence suggesting that Horn had spinal degeneration at least prior to his employment at Riverside, there was no evidence or claim that this degeneration was a preexisting work related compensable injury at any time. [5] [¶26.] Horn failed to prove the compensability of his disability claim and Horn is not entitled to additional benefits. Therefore, it is unnecessary to discuss the responsibility for payment of the claim. [¶27.] Affirmed. [¶28.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur. [¶29.] JENSEN, Circuit Judge, for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.