 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation11/20/2002
e influence of a work-related injury. Grauel, 2000 SD 145, , 619 NW2d at 265. Further, the employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury "arose out of the course of employment and that employment was a major contributing cause of condition or disability, impairment or need for treatment." Id. Grauel, like this situation, involved a pre-existing condition and a work related injury. In Grauel, we held even though an employee's occupational duties provided the ultimate catalyst for his injury, it was his pre-existing arthritis that was the major contributing cause to his injury, not his occupational activities, therefore no recovery was permitted. Id. .
[ ] During the course of her treatment with Dr. Suga in early 1998, Dr. Suga opined that Byrum's sciatic nerve pain condition was probably not the result of perpetual driving. In an independent medical evaluation conducted on behalf of Dakota Wellness and State Farm, Dr. Farnham agreed. Further, Dr. Suga testified during his deposition that the disc degeneration Byrum was experiencing was not typical of any particular activity such as driving. Still, Byrum cites to Dr. Suga's deposition to suggest repetitive driving somehow exacerbated her 1996 injuries. Without the benefit of Byrum's prior accident history Dr. Cho concluded Byrum's pain was the result of repetitive driving.
[ ] Unlike Grauel, there is no clear indication from the record that Byrum's occupational duties served as the catalyst for her back pain. Instead, Byrum's history is rich with incidents of back pain. Given Byrum's complex history of back pain all indications suggest repetitive occupational driving is not to blame.
[ ] The circuit court determined SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b) applied, concluding Byrum suffered from a pre-existing back injury prior to her 1996 complaint. The facts support such a conclusion. Under the statutory language in 62-1-1(7)(b), Byrum must show her job related pain is a major contributing factor to her current condition. The circuit court examined Dr. Cho and Dr. Farnham's deposition testimony under the appropriate standard and held that repetitive driving was not a major contributing factor to her current condition.
[ ] The circuit court's conclusions based on the application of 62-1-1(7)(b) are affirmed.
[ ] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, KONENKAMP, Justice, AMUNDSON, Retired Justice, and ROEHR, Circuit Judge, concur.
[ ] CALDWELL, Circuit Judge, for SABERS, Justice, disqualified.
[ ] ROEHR, Circuit Judge, for ZINTER, Justice, disqualified. Footnotes 1. Although the record reflects that Byrum experienced more than one distinct onset of back injury , Byrum only filed a first report of injury form for her 1996 injury.
|