 |
 |
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
to state an opinion on this topic places his ultimate opinion concerning major contributing cause in question. Combining this information with the earlier discussion of Dr. Ahrlin's faulty assumption about work-related injuries leads this Court to find Dr. Ahrlin's testimony as to major contributing cause is inconclusive and therefore incapable of sustaining Grauel's burden of proof on that issue in this case.
[ ] Although unnecessary given our discussion of Dr. Ahrlin's deposition, we briefly discuss Dr. Anderson's deposition. He performed an independent medical evaluation of Grauel on behalf of SDSM&T;on June 8, 1998, almost two years after the injury . He concluded that Grauel's employment was not a major contributing cause of his knee condition. Dr. Anderson opined that Grauel suffered from degenerative arthritis of the knee and that this was the major contributing cause of his knee condition. Dr. Anderson reasoned that the presence of loose bodies in the knee combined with minor swelling and full range of motion at the time of the accident indicated that the pre-existing condition of degenerative arthritis rather than employment activities was the major contributing cause of Grauel's knee condition. Although this contradicts the treating physician, Dr. Ahrlin, Dr. Anderson's opinion is logical and supported in the record.
[ ] The Department of Labor and Grauel's counsel stress the fact that Dr. Anderson did not review all of Grauel's medical records. However, as this Court views the record, this point carries little weight. First, Dr. Anderson was missing only two records -- a visit to Dr. Ahrlin on October 21, 1996 and an impairment rating visit to Dr. Ahrlin on May 29, 1998. Second, SDSM&T;s counsel presented Dr. Anderson with each of these records during his deposition, and he stated that the information contained in those two records did not change his opinion.
[ ] Grauel's counsel contends that Dr. Ahrlin's testimony should be accepted as satisfying Grauel's burden of proof, but as discussed above, we disagree. Dr. Ahrlin's testimony is inconclusive and simply does not sustain Grauel's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment was a major contributing cause of his knee condition. Additionally, when reviewing the two depositions together, Dr. Anderson's testimony is based on logical reasoning supported by evidence in the record. Although we did find Grauel's injury arose out of his employment, he needed to also establish that his employment was a major contributing cause of his knee condition. This he failed to do.
[ ] Affirmed.
[ ] SABERS, AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.
|