 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Grauel v. South Dakota School of Mines and Technology11/21/2000
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Hughes County, SD
Hon. Steven L. Zinter, Judge
Affirmed
Considered on Briefs Sep 18, 2000;
[ ] In this appeal, we hold that a workers' compensation claimant failed to establish that his employment was a major contributing cause of his knee condition.
FACTS
[ ] George L. Grauel worked as a custodian for the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology (SDSM&T;. He injured his left knee at work on August 8, 1996. Grauel testified that he felt his knee "pop" and experienced immediate pain as he walked to his next duty station after he finished sweeping a floor. He notified his supervisors of the incident and visited a doctor that day.
[ ] The initial doctor referred Grauel to Dr. Hollis L. Ahrlin, Jr., an orthopedic surgeon, for examination. Dr. Ahrlin examined him and found "some" swelling of the left knee. Although Grauel complained of tenderness and discomfort, Dr. Ahrlin noted that he had almost full range of motion, stable ligaments and the x-rays of his left knee showed no problems. Dr. Ahrlin stated in his deposition that he suspected a torn cartilage or other internal knee problem at the time. He prescribed leg exercises and took Grauel off work.
[ ] Grauel treated with Dr. Ahrlin several times over the following months and did not return to work during this time. Ultimately, Dr. Ahrlin decided Grauel needed arthroscopic surgery. On October 24, 1996, Dr. Ahrlin performed an arthroscopic general joint debridement consisting of removal of loose bodies within the knee, trimming of the medial femoral condyle and releasing a couple of synovial plica. During the surgery, Dr. Ahrlin noted degenerative changes under the kneecap and the medial femoral condyle.
[ ] On November 19, 1996, Grauel returned to his custodial duties for the first time since the August 8th incident. He continued working until early April 1997 and resigned on April 15, 1997. Grauel testified that he resigned because his custodial duties increased the risk of aggravating his knee injury and caused his knee discomfort.
[ ] Grauel requested workers' compensation benefits from SDSM&T;for the August 8th knee injury. SDSM&T;denied his claim. On February 18, 1999, the Department of Labor held a hearing at which Grauel presented Dr. Ahrlin's deposition testimony. SDSM&T;presented deposition testimony of Dr. Wayne Anderson who had performed an independent medical evaluation on behalf of SDSM&T; The administrative law judge awarded benefits concluding that Grauel's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and that Grauel's employment was a major contributing cause of injury to his knee. SDSM&T;appealed to the circuit court, which reversed the Department of Labor's award of benefits. Grauel appeals. We affirm.
[ ] Our standard of review in workers' compensation cases is well settled. We make the same review of the agency's decision as the circuit court, and the circuit court's decision enjoys no presumption of correctness. Appeal of Templeton, 403 NW2d 398, 399 (SD 1987) (citations omitted). We give great weight to the findings and inferences made by the agency on factual questions. Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Constr., 1998 SD 27, , 576 NW2d 237, 240 (citing Sopko v. C&R;Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, , 575 NW2d 225, 228 (citations omitted)). We apply the clearly erroneous standard to these findings of fact meaning we carefully review the entire record and will reverse only if we are "definitely and firmly convinced a mistake has been committed... ." Sopko, 1998 SD 8, , 575 NW2d at 228 (citations omitted). Agency decisions co
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|