Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP
| Decision Date | 15 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | #28824 |
| Parties | Alan Anthony ARMSTRONG, Claimant and Appellant, v. LONGVIEW FARMS, LLP, Employer and Appellee, and Travelers Property and Casualty, Insurer and Appellee. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
JAMES D. LEACH, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorney for claimant and appellant.
REBECCA L. MANN of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson and Ashmore, LLP, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for employer, insurer and appellees.
[¶1.] Alan Armstrong injured his left knee while working at Longview Farm, LLP (Longview Farm or Longview). The cost of Armstrong’s initial treatment was paid by Longview and its workers’ compensation insurer, but they denied liability for his total knee replacement
surgery and post-operative treatment. In a bifurcated administrative proceeding, the Department of Labor (the Department) determined Armstrong’s knee surgery and related treatment were not compensable. The Department found the work-related injury neither contributed independently, nor was a major contributing cause of his need for surgery. The circuit court affirmed the Department’s decision, which Armstrong now appeals. We affirm.
[¶2.] Alan Armstrong worked for over six years at Longview Farm1 in rural Charles Mix County. His primary responsibilities involved caring for gilts2 until they weighed around 300 pounds and were then ready to be bred. He previously worked at Schwartz Farms, another pork producer, for approximately nine years.
[¶3.] Armstrong sustained two work-related injuries to his left knee prior to working at Longview Farm. The first occurred in Texas in the mid-1990’s. Armstrong testified he was "irrigating cotton and something just clicked and it was really painful." He further testified that following surgery to repair his meniscus, his left knee was "good."
[¶4.] Armstrong’s second injury occurred in 2005 when he slipped and fell on his left knee while he was working at Schwartz Farms. During arthroscopic surgery
to repair Armstrong’s knee,3 Yankton orthopedic surgeon Dr. Don Swift discovered the presence of severe osteoarthritis. Dr. Swift’s notes indicate that he discussed the option of a total knee replacement to address the severe osteoarthritis, but Armstrong wanted to forestall surgery as long as possible through conservative treatment. Dr. Swift offered Armstrong additional treatment, including lubricant injections, but the workers’ compensation insurer for Schwartz Farms would not approve the treatments. In its view, Armstrong’s ongoing condition was degenerative in nature and not caused by his work injury.4 Armstrong did not challenge the insurer’s denial by filing a petition with the Department of Labor.
[¶5.] At several points in the years after his 2005 work-related injury, Armstrong’s medical providers commented on his worsening left knee condition. For instance, a note from Scotland Medical Clinic in February 2015 states that 5 Armstrong told his providers that he knew he needed knee replacement surgery, but testified that he was hoping to make it to "60-ish" before needing the surgery.6 Armstrong further testified that he was making good money, had excellent work attendance, and never missed a day of work due to his left knee condition.
[¶6.] The injury giving rise to this workers’ compensation case occurred on March 31, 2016. Armstrong was scraping the floor of Longview Farm’s hog confinement building with a curved push blade. The blade caught on the flooring, causing him to trip. Armstrong testified that he landed on his left leg, which was "twisted up and ... really painful." He stated that he experienced pain in his left knee and could not stand on it. A co-worker helped him to the break room and put ice packs on his knee. Armstrong went to the clinic in Scotland that day and was referred to Orthopedic Institute in Sioux Falls, where he was treated by Dr. Michael Adler, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon.
[¶7.] Dr. Adler ordered magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI), which revealed "severe tricompartmental osteoarthritis [,] extensive degeneration and tearing of the lateral meniscus[,] chronic ACL tear[ ] [and] ... degeneration of the medial meniscus." However, Dr. Adler noted no major acute injuries. He offered either conservative treatment or total knee replacement. Armstrong chose total knee replacement, because, as he testified, "they could do ... cortisone shots, and, ... that kind of stuff ... [but] it wouldn't fix the problem, because there was damage."
[¶8.] Travelers Property and Casualty (Travelers), the workers’ compensation insurer for Longview Farm, wrote Armstrong on April 27, 2016, and advised it had determined that his work injury was not a "major contributing cause" of his left knee condition. Instead, Travelers asserted the current condition was due to a chronic, preexisting condition. The letter also informed Armstrong that Travelers would not pay medical benefits after April 27, 2016.
[¶9.] Armstrong underwent bilateral total knee replacement
surgery, performed by Dr. Adler, on May 2, 2016. Armstrong testified that he chose to have both knees replaced at the same time so he would only have to pay his out-of-pocket deductible once and miss less work. Although his right knee replacement was successful, Armstrong’s artificial left knee became infected, requiring two additional surgeries to remove it and replace it with antibiotic spacers. After the second surgery, Dr. Adler referred him to the Mayo Clinic for additional treatment. Though his infection has now resolved, Armstrong states that he cannot afford the additional surgery necessary to complete his left knee replacement.
[¶10.] Longview terminated Armstrong on December 5, 2016. He filed a petition with the Department on January 17, 2017, alleging that Longview and Travelers "denied medical and compensation benefits without any reasonable basis...." The parties agreed to litigate the causation issue separately.
[¶11.] Longview and Travelers engaged Dr. Benjamin Bissell, also a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, to conduct an independent medical examination (IME). In a subsequent letter, Dr. Bissell concluded that Armstrong’s work injury did not combine with a pre-existing disease or condition to cause or prolong disability, impairment, or need for treatment "[because] it is clear that he had pre-existing severe osteoarthritis
prior to the 3/31/2016 injury." During his deposition, Dr. Bissell provided his expert opinion that Armstrong’s work-related injury was not a major contributing cause of his need for knee replacement surgery. In Dr. Bissell’s view, Armstrong’s severe osteoarthritis was the cause of his inability to work after his March 31 injury. On re-direct examination Dr. Bissell confirmed this opinion over Armstrong’s leading-question objection, which the Department overruled, concluding that Dr. Bissell’s response "merely summarized" his previous testimony and therefore did not prejudice Armstrong.
[¶12.] For his part, Dr. Adler held a different view relating to causation. He opined that Armstrong’s work-related injury was a major contributing cause of his need for left knee replacement "[b]ased on Mr. Armstrong’s statement of his ability to do heavy work before his March 31, 2016, left knee injury
[,]" but not after the injury. In his deposition testimony, Dr. Adler described Armstrong’s condition as left knee osteoarthritis with an acute knee injury. However, the acute injury he identified was knee swelling and pain with no definitive medical diagnosis. Dr. Adler acknowledged that Armstrong likely met the diagnostic criteria for a knee replacement years earlier and further that Armstrong’s "knee arthritis didn't get worse by March 31, 2016, compared to March 30, 2016." Instead, he based his causation opinions upon Armstrong’s subjective pain, explaining that "[w]hatever happened on March 31[ ], 2016, was bad enough to put him over the edge."
[¶13.] At the administrative hearing to determine compensability, Dr. Adler and Dr. Bissell testified by deposition, and Armstrong testified in person. The Department found Dr. Bissell’s testimony more persuasive, concluding that "[t]he weight of the evidence establishes that Claimant’s pain and immobility were primarily due to years of severe and degenerative osteoarthritis
." The Department acknowledged that Armstrong’s March 31 injury "did contribute to his disability" but determined it "was not a major contributing cause." Therefore, the Department concluded that Armstrong had not established by a preponderance of the evidence that his work-related injury was either a major contributing cause or independently contributed to his need for knee replacement surgery.
[¶14.] Armstrong appealed the Department’s decision to the circuit court, which affirmed the Department’s ruling. Armstrong now appeals to this court, raising several issues restated as follows:
[¶15.] We utilize the same standard of review used by the circuit court to review decisions by the Department. Petrik v. JJ Concrete, Inc. , 2015 S.D. 39, ¶ 10, 865 N.W.2d 133, 137. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriguez
...843, 845 (S.D. 1979). To mandate reversal, an abuse of discretion and a showing of prejudice is required. Id. See also Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP , 2020 S.D. 1, ¶ 20, 938 N.W.2d 425, 430. "An abuse of discretion is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permiss......
-
News Am. Mktg. v. Schoon
...880, 884). [¶23.] Employer/Insurer argues that the circuit court and Department misapplied Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP, 2020 S.D. 1, 938 N.W.2d 425, in finding that Claimant proved her "work-related injury was and remains a major contributing cause of her condition, need for treatment,......