Peterson v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
2012 SD 52
| S.D. | 2012Background
- Peterson worked as a CNA for Good Samaritan, and had prior injuries including a 2007 back injury from lifting a resident.
- In July 2009, while wearing a walking boot, she injured her back during a overnight shift bending to assist a resident with a wheelchair pedal.
- Emergency room CAT scan showed disc protrusion at L5-S1; MRI later revealed a substantially bulging disc with height loss.
- Two doctors, Hoversten (orthopedic surgeon) and Blow (physiatrist), gave conflicting causation opinions about whether the injury was work-related and whether employment remained a major contributing cause.
- The Department denied workers’ compensation benefits, finding no work-related injury and no major contributing cause; the circuit court affirmed.
- On de novo review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding the employment contributed as a major contributing cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of review applies to the agency findings? | Peterson argues de novo review based on documentary evidence. | Good Samaritan argues clearly erroneous standard, aligned with SDCL 15-6-52(a). | De novo review applied for causation findings based on medical records and depositions. |
| Whether Peterson sustained a work-related injury and employment remains a major contributing cause | Peterson contends the July 15, 2009 incident caused a work-related injury and is a major contributing cause. | Defendant contends the medical opinions show no work-related injury or major contributing cause. | Peterson established work-related injury and that employment remained a major contributing cause. |
| Which medical opinion should control on causation | Hoversten’s examination-based opinion should be more persuasive than Blow’s records-based view. | The insurer relied on Blow’s review opinion. | Hoversten’s opinion was more persuasive and sufficient to meet the burden. |
| Does prior back injury and ankle condition affect causation under SDCL 62-1-1(7) | The record supports a 62-1-1(7) claim under the ‘a major contributing cause’ and related subparts. | Defendant argues preexisting conditions undercut causation. | Record supports that the 2009 back injury was a major contributing cause; 62-1-1(7)(a)-(b) apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darling v. W. River Masonry, Inc., 2010 S.D. 4 (S.D. 2010) (de novo review when agency bases findings on documentary evidence)
- Vollmer v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., 2007 S.D. 25 (S.D. 2007) (de novo review for documentary evidence)
- Watertown Coop. Elevator Ass’n v. S.D. Dep’t of Revenue, 2001 S.D. 56 (S.D. 2001) (agency findings reviewed with deference to factual inferences)
- Stockwell v. Stockwell, 2010 S.D. 79 (S.D. 2010) (agency findings reviewed for clear error when appropriate)
- Gluscic v. Avera St. Luke’s, 2002 S.D. 93 (S.D. 2002) (clarifies review standards for agency findings)
- Miller v. Miller, 349 N.W.2d 46 (S.D. 1984) (agency/ circuit court findings reviewed for statutory compliance)
- Biwabik v. First Nat’l Bank of Biwabik, 535 N.W.2d 866 (S.D. 1995) (pre-2000 de novo vs clearly erroneous debate noted)
- Engel v. Prostrollo Motors, 656 N.W.2d 299 (S.D. 2003) (comparator for persuasiveness of expert testimony)
- Wise v. Brooks Constr. Servs., 2006 S.D. 80 (S.D. 2006) (standard for determining major contributing cause in workers’ comp)
- Schuck v. John Morrell & Co., 529 N.W.2d 894 (S.D. 1995) (discusses compensability by strain or overexertion during employment)
- In re Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 382 N.W.2d 413 (S.D. 1986) (agency review framework in SD administrative appeals)
- Darling v. W. River Masonry, Inc. (duplicate entry for emphasis), see above (S.D. 2010) (as above in listing)