 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation11/20/2002
. SDCL 62-1-1(7) first requires an injury be established by medical evidence, and:
a. No injury is compensable unless the employment or employment related activities are a major contributing cause of the condition complained of; or b. If the injury combines with a pre-existing disease or condition to cause or prolong disability, impairment, or need for treatment, the condition complained of is compensable if the employment or employment related injury is and remains a major contributing cause of the disability, impairment, or need for treatment. c. If the injury combines with a pre-existing work related compensable injury, disability, or impairment, the subsequent injury is compensable if the subsequent employment or subsequent employment related activities contributed independently to the disability, impairment, or need for treatment.
SDCL 62-1-1(7).
[ ] While both subsection (b) and subsection (c) deal with pre-existing injuries, the distinction turns on what factors set the pre-existing injury into motion; if a pre-existing condition is the result of an occupational injury then subsection (c) controls, if the pre-existing condition developed outside of the occupational setting then subsection (b) controls. Grauel v. South Dakota School of Mines, 2000 SD 145, , 16-17, 619 NW2d 260, 262-265. Byrum contends subsection (c) controls and argues the back pain she suffered beginning in 1998 and continuing thereafter, was an exclusive aggravation of her occupational injury from September 1996, the ostensible consequence of repetitive automobile travel. Under subsection (c), Byrum need only prove her occupational duties independently contributed to her resulting pain, while under subsection (b) Byrum would have the more onerous task of showing her occupational duties were a major contributing cause to her impairment or need for treatment. Steinberg v. South Dakota Dep't of Military & Veterans Affairs, 2000 SD 36, , 607 NW2d 596, 599-600. While Byrum argues the language in subsection (c) most appropriately fits her situation, this argument fails upon review of the record.
[ ] Byrum relies on the deposition of Dr. Cho offered at her administrative hearing to establish her injuries are the sole product of her vocation. In regard to such testimony it is well settled that a physician's opinion can rise no further than the foundation upon which it is predicated. Schneider v. S.D. Dep't of Transp., 2001 SD 70, , 628 NW2d 725, 730. Further, an award cannot rest upon speculative medical evidence. Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, , 597 NW2d 677, 681. Applying law to fact, the opinion of Dr. Cho must be precise and well supported to bolster Byrum's position. The circuit court found it was not.
[ ] Dr. Cho's testimony rests on sweeping conclusions without the benefit of Byrum's previous medical records, which document some thirty chiropractic visits for back pain between 1994 and 1995. Further, during Byrum's chiropractic visits after her ski lift accident in 1994 she complained of high back and neck problems. Yet, Dr. Cho opines these similar back and neck symptoms are the sole product of Byrum's 1996 injury . Clearly, Dr. Cho did not have all the facts regarding Byrum's history of back problems when she formed her opinion. If the value of an expert's opinion is no better than the facts upon which such conclusions are based, Dr. Cho's opinion proves nothing. Johnson v. Albertsons, 2000 SD 47, , 610 NW2d 449, 455 (quoting Podia v. American Colloid Co., 83 SD 528, 532, 162 NW2d 385, 387 (1968)).
[ ] This Court has held "the mere occurrence of an injury at work does not mean it is ipso facto work-related," pre-existing processes may undermine th
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
|