 |
 |
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
e).
This Court may also look to other state courts for guidance on the issue of classifying an allergic reaction as an injury. Recently, in St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 NW2d 646 (Iowa 2000), the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a nurse suffering from a latex allergy was entitled to coverage for a work-related injury rather than an occupational disease. Id. at 650. In that case, the claimant was faced with increased symptomology associated with latex in the workplace. Her doctors advised that she was permanently partially disabled because her workplace could not be made latex-free.
Although Kennedy was predisposed to her allergy and was, no doubt, suffering from the disease of latex allergy, an injury may occur when a pre-existing disease makes an employee more susceptible to a work-related injury. As this Court stated in Elmstrand v. G. & G. Rug & Furniture Company, 77 SD 152, 155, 87 NW2d 606, 608 (1958):
In so far as the pre-existing condition is concerned we must take the employee as we find him. If a compensable event contributed to the final disability, recovery may not be denied because of the pre-existing condition, even though such condition was the immediate cause of the disability.
Again, in Hendrix v. Graham Tire Co., 520 NW2d 876, 879 (SD 1994), this Court determined that pre-existing conditions are not an automatic disqualification for workers' compensation . However, an injury is always a question of fact to be determined by the Department based upon evidence and testimony.
A pre-existing medical condition or infirmity does not disqualify a claim under the "arising out of employment" requirement if the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the condition or infirmity to produce the disability for which compensation is sought. Guthmiller v. Dept. of Transportation, 502 NW2d 586, 590 (SD 1993) (Sabers, J., dissenting) (citing 1 Larson, Workmen's Comp. ยง 12.25.) "'Whether the employment aggravated, accelerated, or combined with the internal weakness or disease to produce the disability is a question of fact, not law, and a finding of fact on this point by [Department] based on any medical testimony ... will not be disturbed on appeal."' Id. Hendrix, 520 NW2d at 879.
DOL made a factual ruling that Kennedy's significant allergic reaction of July 1996 was a compensable injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7) causing all subsequent anaphylactic reactions to latex. This decision was legally sound and based on solid medical evidence. DOL's ruling is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed.
ISSUE TWO
Is Kennedy's allergy an Occupational Disease as defined by SDCL ch 62-8?
DOL found that Kennedy's allergy might indeed be an occupational disease because latex allergy is more prevalent in the medical industry. Being diagnosed with this condition would decrease the chances of finding employment in the medical field. However, based upon the medical experts, Kennedy's allergy was not life threatening and could have been controlled up until July 1996. At that time, Kennedy's exposure to latex at St Luke's was so great that she can no longer be exposed to latex products. The experts diagnosed this condition as irreversible. At the time of injury, Kennedy was unaware of the dangers of this illness.
This Court will not second-guess the factual findings of DOL unless they are clearly erroneous. Gordon, supra. In this case, DOL found that the allergic reaction in 1996 was more closely recognized as a workplace injury rather than an injury due to an occupational disease. The allergy at the time of injury became an occupational disease, but on July 8, 1996, was stil
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.
|
|