 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Luke's Midland Regional Medical Center v. Kennedy11/13/2002
Kennedy's workers' compensation case against St. Luke's was brought before DOL. A hearing was held on December 22, 1999. DOL issued a decision on June 6, 2000 and findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 30, 2000. DOL awarded Kennedy permanent total disability benefits under SDCL 62-1-1(7). St. Luke's appealed that decision to the circuit court. A ruling was issued on October 19, 2001. It affirmed the fact that Kennedy's condition was an occupational disease, however it reversed DOL by ruling that the disease was not caused by an injury. It also reversed DOL's decision by ruling that the specific notice statutes in SDCL 62-8-29 and 13 applied over the general notice statutes in 62-7-10, thereby precluding the award of workers' compensation to Kennedy. Kennedy appeals that decision. St. Luke's raises two issues by notice of review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our standard of review in workers' compensation cases is well settled.
In workers' compensation cases, this Court gives great weight to the findings and inferences made by DOL on factual questions. Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Const., 1998 SD 27, , 576 NW2d 237, 240 (citing Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, , 575 NW2d 225). "Under SDCL 1-26-37, when the issue is a question of fact then the clearly erroneous standard is applied to the agency's findings; however, when the issue is a question of law, the actions of the agency are fully reviewable." Id. (citing Loewen v. Hyman Freightways, Inc., 1997 SD 2, , 557 NW2d 764, 766). When reviewing agency findings, we "will reverse, only if, after careful review of the entire record, we are definitely and firmly convinced a mistake has been made." Id. (citation omitted). Gordon v. St. Mary's Healthcare Center, 2000 SD 130, , 617 NW2d 151, 156.
ISSUE ONE
Was Kennedy's allergic reaction on July 8, 1996 a compensable injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7)
Determining whether an allergic reaction is a compensable injury is a matter of first impression for this Court. DOL concluded that Kennedy suffered a compensable injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b), holding that she had pre-existing allergies which, when combined with latex at work, produced anaphylactic shock and the consequences thereof. DOL decided that this disability was ongoing and was the major cause of Kennedy's present inability to work. As a matter of law, the circuit court reversed DOL's ruling by holding that Kennedy had an occupational disease for which she failed to properly give notice and that she could not recover workers' compensation benefits.
The allergists who testified agreed that the July 1996 exposure was the "point of no return" for Kennedy and that this exposure was the major contributing cause of her disability. Since that point, any exposure to latex is now a major life or death situation for Kennedy. Is this reaction an injury in South Dakota? Claimant compares this injury to back injuries or heart disease' where the cause cannot be linked to one occasion, but a series of occasions leading up to the disabling injury. South Dakota has a history of awarding compensation to claimants, even though they cannot prove any specific trauma, if they prove a history of injury to the body that occurs in the normal course of employment. See e.g. Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co., 489 NW2d 353 (SD 1992) (man compensated for back condition without a specific work incident); Sudrla v. Commercial Asphalt & Materials, 465 NW2d 620 (SD 1991). In Kirnan v. Dakota Midland Hosp., 331 NW2d 72 (SD 1983), this Court compensated a man who suffered a heart attack at work. See also Westergren v. Baptist Hasp. of Winner, 1996 SD 69, 549 NW2d 390 (carpal tunnel syndrom
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.
|
|