 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation11/20/2002
llness and State Farm Insurance appealed this decision. On appeal the circuit court overturned the agency's ruling, finding an independent medical evaluation conducted on behalf of Dakota Wellness and State Farm concluding Byrum's pain was not the result of routine traveling was more persuasive. Byrum appeals the circuit court's reversal and raises the following issues:
Whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review to the Department's findings of fact. Whether the trial court erred when it analyzed claimant's injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] The standard of review in an administrative appeal is governed by SDCL 1-26-36. All actions regarding an agency's conclusions of law are fully reviewable de novo, while questions of fact are reviewed by this Court under the clearly erroneous standard. Belhassen v. John Morrell & Co., 2000 SD 82, 613 NW2d 531; Katz v. South Dakota State Bd. of Medical & Osteopathic Examiners., 432 NW2d 274 (SD 1988). This Court gives deference and great weight to the agency or hearing officer on fact questions. Geobel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79, , 612 NW2d 18, 21; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, , 576 NW2d 878, 882; Sopko v. C&R;Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, , 575 NW2d 225, 228. When factual determinations are made on the basis of documentary evidence, however, the matter is to be reviewed de novo, unhampered by the clearly erroneous rule. Watertown Coop. Elevator Assn. v. State Dept. of Rev., 2001 SD 56, , 627 NW2d 167, 171; Kurtz, 1998 SD 37, , 576 NW2d at 882. To overturn factual determinations made by an administrative agency there must be a definitive and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Geobel, 2000 SD 79, , 612 NW2d at 21; Kurtz, 1998 SD 37, , 576 NW2d at 882; Sopko, 1998 SD 8, , 575 NW2d at 228.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION ISSUE ONE
[ ] Whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review to the Department's findings of fact.
[ ] Byrum argues the circuit court erred when it reviewed the deposition testimony presented at the agency hearing under the de novo standard. Until this court's recent opinion in Brown v. Douglas School District, 2002 SD 92, 650 NW2d 264, the standard of review for deposition testimony in administrative appeals was unclear based on recent amendments to SDCL 15-6-52(a). See e.g., Webster Educ. Ass'n v. Webster Sch. Dist., 2001 SD 94, , 631 NW2d 202, 206 (Konenkamp, J., concurring) (" ut whether we apply the standard of review from SDCL 15-6-52(a) to agency fact findings on disputed or undisputed facts must be left for another day."). However, in Brown, this Court made clear SDCL 15-6-52(a) does not apply to a trial court's review of an agency decision. See Brown, 2002 SD 92, -17, 650 NW2d at 267. Unlike all other findings of fact made by an administrative agency, findings based on deposition testimony in an agency appeal are reviewed de novo; the clearly erroneous exception found in SDCL 15-6-52(a) does not apply. Id. As such, SDCL 1-26-37 sets forth the standard to be applied in an administrative appeal, with no deference to the recent amendments to 15-6-52(a). Id. .
[ ] The circuit court correctly applied the de novo standard to findings of fact based on deposition testimony.
ISSUE TWO
[ ] Whether the trial court erred when it analyzed claimant's injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b).
[ ] Byrum argues the circuit court applied the wrong workers' compensation statute in reversing the administrative agency's decision. Specifically, Byrum claims SDCL 62-1-1(7)(c) should be applied rather than SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b) when defining "injury" under the workers' compensation statutes
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|