 |
 |
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
7 NW2d at 605. It is sufficient if the employment contributes "to causing the injury," Zacher v. Homestake Mining Co., 514 NW2d 394, 395 (SD 1994), or the activity is one in which the employee might reasonably be expected to engage, Rohlck v. J & L Rainbow, Inc., 1996 SD 115, , 553 NW2d 521, 527, or the activity brings about the disability upon which compensation is based. Maroney, 1997 SD 73, , 565 NW2d at 73. A possibility, however, is insufficient; a claimant must show a probability that his employment caused the injury. Brady Memorial Home, 1999 SD 77, , 597 NW2d at 680 (citations omitted).
[ ] The parties agree Grauel was injured in the course of his employment. Much of the parties' dispute focused on whether Grauel was "twisting" or turning when his knee popped or whether he was simply "walking." We believe the dispute is of no consequence. The question is, did the employment contribute to causing the injury or is the activity one in which the employee might reasonably be expected to engage or did the employment activity bring about the disability on which the compensation is based?
[ ] Grauel testified, without contradiction, that he was working his regular shift and his knee popped while he was walking to his next duty. Fulfillment of Grauel's custodial duties necessarily involved walking, twisting and turning. Additionally, SDSM&T;s independent medical examiner, Dr. Anderson, testified that any walking or moving contributes to "what happens orthopedically." An injury occurring during any of these employment activities would be an activity which contributed to Grauel's knee injury or in which he would reasonably be expected to engage or which brought about the disability upon which his compensation was based. Accordingly, Grauel's knee injury arose out of his employment. This conclusion is consistent with workers' compensation purpose of replacing common law's doubtful tort based recovery system with a system based on a right to relief upon establishing the fact of employment, "automatic and certain, expeditious and independent of proof of fault." Steinberg, 2000 SD 36, , 607 NW2d at 602 (quoting Keil v. Nelson, 355 NW2d 525, 530 (SD 1984)) (alteration in original). We must always remember that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for all on-the-job injuries, and workers' compensation statutes should be applied without defeating the purpose of the overall statutory scheme. Id. . Unfortunately for Grauel, this issue is not decisive of his claim.
[ ] 2. Grauel failed to establish that his employment or employment related activity was a major contributing cause of his condition or his disability, impairment or need for treatment.
[ ] As discussed earlier, the South Dakota Legislature amended SDCL 62-1-1(7) adding the "major contributing cause" language in 1995. Steinberg, 2000 SD 36, , 607 NW2d at 599. The new language requires an employee to show his employment or employment related activity was a "major contributing cause" of the condition of which he complains or, where an employee has a pre-existing disease or condition, the employment or employment related injury is and remains a major contributing cause of the disability, impairment, or need for treatment. Id. . The statute now reads in pertinent part:
(7) "Injury" or "personal injury," only injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, and does not include a disease in any form except as it results from the injury. An injury is compensable only if it is established by medical evidence, subject to the following conditions:
(a) No injury is compensable unless the employment or employment related activities are a major contributing cause of the 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.
|
|