Court Opinion

ID: 9687074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:15:28.905092+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:24.071536
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
The extent of claimant’s disability, arrived at through expert opinion, is a question of fact. “When the issue is a question of fact, we ascertain whether the administrative agency was clearly erroneous.” Hanson v. Penrod Const. Co., 425 N.W.2d 396, 397 (S.D.1988) (citation omitted). When reviewing evidence presented by deposition, we do not apply the clearly erroneous standard but review that testimony as though presented here for the first time. Day, 490 N.W.2d at 723. As stated in the majority opinion, “[t]he question is not if there exists evidence contrary to the agency’s finding, but is there substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding?” See Id. at 723-24 (citation omitted). See also 1 Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 12.25 (1993). *590“Whether the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the internal weakness or disease to produce the disability is a question of fact, not law, and a finding of fact on this point by the commission based on any medical testimony ... will not be disturbed on appeal.” 1 Larson, Workmen’s Comp. § 12.25.
Dr. Harlow, an orthopedic surgeon, assigned a 40% physical impairment to Claimant’s left upper extremity based on his range of motion and loss of grip strength with radical carpal arthrosis. He also indicated a wrist fusion would probably be necessary in the future to prevent pain. Dr. Kazie, another orthopedic surgeon, assigned a 27% physical impairment rating and indicated that, over time, degenerative changes in the joint may result in a higher impairment. Claimant’s vocational expert, Rick Ostrander, concluded Claimant had a 100% loss of use of the left upper extremity and DOT’s vocational expert, William Penniston, concluded Claimant had a 65% loss of use of the left upper extremity.
Although generally, as the majority says, “[a]n injury to one arm does not constitute a loss of both arms nor should it totally incapacitate^]” there is evidence here to show that “claimant is unemployable in the market and is not a candidate for rehabilitation.” Claimant is 56 years old, has an 8th grade education, and has difficulty reading, writing, and comprehending. In many respects, in connection with his other limitations, this injury to his left upper extremity disabled him as totally as the proverbial concert pianist’s loss of one hand.
“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.” Barkdull v. Homestake Mining Co., 317 N.W.2d 417, 418 (S.D.1982 (citations omitted). See also Hanson, 425 N.W.2d at 398-99. The hearing examiner concluded in Conclusions of Law V and VI that:
1. Claimant made a prima facie showing that his physical impairment, mental capacity, education, training, and age placed him in the odd lot category;
2. DOT had not shown that some suitable work is regularly and continuously available to Claimant;
3. the wrist injury contributed to his final permanent total disability and,
4. he should prevail on his claim for permanent total disability benefits. Preexisting disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim under the “arising out of employment” requirement if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce the death or disability for which compensation is sought. This is sometimes expressed by saying that the employer takes the employee as he finds him. 1 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation § 12.21.
By an exceptional statute in seven states, when a preexisting disease is aggravated by the employment, compensation is payable only for the percentage of disability attributable to the accident. Apart from such statutes, the relative contribution of the accident and the prior disease is not weighed.
1 Larson, Worker's Compensation § 12.26 (emphasis added).
“The circuit court, in reviewing the record, may not substitute its own judgment for that of the [hearing examiner] as to the weight of evidence on questions of fact.” Barkdull, 317 N.W.2d at 419 (citation omitted). Since there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the hearing examiner, the examiner’s findings were not clearly erroneous and the circuit court erred in reversing the award. We should reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the hearing examiner’s decision. Id.