Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation, No. 22241.

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtCALDWELL, Circuit.
Citation2002 SD 141,654 N.W.2d 215
PartiesGala BYRUM, Claimant, Employee and Appellant, v. DAKOTA WELLNESS FOUNDATION, Employer and Appellee, and State Farm Insurance Company, Insurer and Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 22241.
Decision Date20 November 2002

654 N.W.2d 215
2002 SD 141

Gala BYRUM, Claimant, Employee and Appellant,
v.
DAKOTA WELLNESS FOUNDATION, Employer and Appellee, and
State Farm Insurance Company, Insurer and Appellee

No. 22241.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs August 26, 2002.

Decided November 20, 2002.


654 N.W.2d 216
Michael S. McKnight and Tamara A. Wilka of Boyce, Murphy, McDowell & Greenfield, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for employee and appellant

J.G. Shultz of Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for appellees.

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

[¶ 1.] Gala Byrum (Byrum) filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits with the South Dakota Department of Labor (Department) seeking an award of permanent partial disability. After a hearing, Byrum's relief was granted. Byrum's employer, Dakota Wellness Foundation, and employer's insurer, State Farm Insurance Company, appealed and the circuit court reversed the Department's Order. Byrum appeals the circuit court's reversal. We affirm.

FACTS

[¶ 2.] For the past fourteen years Byrum has suffered from chronic back pain. In 1988 she was involved in an automobile accident in California which caused her first back injury. In 1994 Byrum sustained injuries to her back after being thrown from, and subsequently hit by, a ski lift chair she was riding. She received substantial medical treatment for this injury. Byrum's medical records during this period of time suggest she suffered pain in both her low and high back and she also began experiencing neck pain.

[¶ 3.] In 1994 Byrum took a position as the Executive Director of the Dakota Wellness Foundation. As part of her job duties Byrum is required to travel extensively in promoting wellness across the state of South Dakota. She typically drives 50,000-60,000 work-related miles a year. In September 1996 Byrum experienced pain and tightness in her lower back while traveling for Dakota Wellness. Byrum filed a first report of injury which her insurer accepted as compensable.1 Prior to this third injury Byrum had already accumulated over thirty chiropractic visits to treat her back.

[¶ 4.] After sustaining this third back injury Byrum sought treatment from Dr. Fogel of Gregory, South Dakota. Byrum stated she was still experiencing back pain from the ski accident when she began treating for the 1996 injury. Like her previous injuries, Byrum testified the pain from this new injury was in the same region of the back.

[¶ 5.] Byrum remained under the care of Dr. Fogel until August 1997. At this time, Dr. Fogel released Byrum after concluding she had reached maximum medical improvement. Thereafter, Byrum's insurer determined the physician directed course of treatment had been followed, and that closing her workers' compensation file was appropriate. Nonetheless, Byrum continued to experience low back pain after

654 N.W.2d 217
her treatment with Dr. Fogel terminated

[¶ 6.] In September 1997 a fourth separate and distinct back injury occurred when Byrum experienced what she describes as the onset of sciatic nerve pain. This new pain was accompanied by low back pain, pain in her leg, high back and neck pain. Byrum sought surgical treatment from Dr. Suga in Sioux Falls. In January 1998 Byrum underwent surgery that relieved some, but not all, symptoms of her back pain. She remained under Dr. Suga's care until June 1998. Byrum continued performing her duties for Dakota Wellness during this time.

[¶ 7.] After being released from Dr. Suga's care Byrum next sought treatment with Dr. Cho, a physiatrist in Sioux Falls. During this time, Byrum acknowledged she was symptomatic for the same lower back complaints that had lingered for several years and also experienced a renewal of pain in her neck, upper back and head. Byrum's response to treatment was minimal. In June 1999 Dr. Cho determined Byrum had reached maximum medical improvement. Still, Byrum's pain persisted.

[¶ 8.] Claiming that her back pain was derivative of her 1996 occupational injury, Byrum again sought workers' compensation. A hearing with the Department was held. Relying primarily on the deposition testimony of Dr. Cho, the Department determined Byrum's suffering was a result of her 1996 accident and awarded her permanent partial disability. Dakota Wellness and State Farm Insurance appealed this decision. On appeal the circuit court overturned the agency's ruling, finding an independent medical evaluation conducted on behalf of Dakota Wellness and State Farm concluding Byrum's pain was not the result of routine traveling was more persuasive. Byrum appeals the circuit court's reversal and raises the following issues:

Whether the trial court applied the proper standard of review to the Department's findings of fact.
Whether the trial court erred when it analyzed claimant's injury under SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 9.] The standard of review in an administrative appeal is governed by SDCL 1-26-36. All actions regarding an agency's conclusions of law are fully reviewable de novo, while questions of fact are reviewed by this Court under the clearly erroneous standard. Belhassen v. John Morrell & Co., 2000 SD 82, 613 N.W.2d 531; Katz v. South Dakota State Bd. of Medical & Osteopathic Examiners., 432 N.W.2d 274 (S.D.1988). This Court gives deference and great weight to the agency or hearing officer on fact questions. Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79, ¶ 10, 612 N.W.2d 18, 21; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶ 9, 576 N.W.2d 878, 882; Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6, 575 N.W.2d 225, 228. When factual determinations are made on the basis of documentary evidence, however, the matter is to be reviewed de novo, unhampered by the clearly erroneous rule. Watertown Coop. Elevator Assn. v. State Dept. of Rev., 2001 SD 56, ¶ 10, 627 N.W.2d 167, 171; Kurtz, 1998 SD 37...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Wise v. Brooks Const. Services, No. 23938.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 23, 2006
    ...gleaned from the totality of Dr. Hoversten's testimony." Employer relies on Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Found., in support of its argument. 2002 SD 141, 654 N.W.2d 215. Byrum, however, does not stand for the proposition that an expert's opinion fails because it omits the exact words, "major co......
  • Vollmer v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., No. 23948.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 7, 2007
    ...cause of [her] condition or [her] disability, impairment or need for treatment.'" Byrum v. 729 N.W.2d 383 Dakota Wellness Foundation, 2002 SD 141, ¶ 18, 654 N.W.2d 215, 219 (citation omitted) (alteration in Byrum). Even if there is no dispute that a claimant "suffered an initial work-relate......
  • Horn v. Dakota Pork, No. 23528.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 11, 2006
    ...to support an award must not be speculative, but rather must be "precise and well supported." Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation, 2002 SD 141, ¶ 16, 654 N.W.2d 215, 219; Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 16, 597 N.W.2d 677, [¶ 15.] Department correctly determined, and Horn does ......
  • Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP, #28824
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 15, 2020
    ...the preexisting condition developed outside of the occupational setting then subsection (b) controls.[938 N.W.2d 431 2002 S.D. 141, ¶ 15, 654 N.W.2d 215, 218 (emphasis added).Causation under SDCL 62-1-(7)(b) [¶23.] Under the causation standard set out in SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b), "[t]he question i......
4 cases
  • Wise v. Brooks Const. Services, No. 23938.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 23, 2006
    ...gleaned from the totality of Dr. Hoversten's testimony." Employer relies on Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Found., in support of its argument. 2002 SD 141, 654 N.W.2d 215. Byrum, however, does not stand for the proposition that an expert's opinion fails because it omits the exact words, "major co......
  • Vollmer v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., No. 23948.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • March 7, 2007
    ...cause of [her] condition or [her] disability, impairment or need for treatment.'" Byrum v. 729 N.W.2d 383 Dakota Wellness Foundation, 2002 SD 141, ¶ 18, 654 N.W.2d 215, 219 (citation omitted) (alteration in Byrum). Even if there is no dispute that a claimant "suffered an initial work-relate......
  • Horn v. Dakota Pork, No. 23528.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 11, 2006
    ...to support an award must not be speculative, but rather must be "precise and well supported." Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation, 2002 SD 141, ¶ 16, 654 N.W.2d 215, 219; Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 16, 597 N.W.2d 677, [¶ 15.] Department correctly determined, and Horn does ......
  • Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP, #28824
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 15, 2020
    ...the preexisting condition developed outside of the occupational setting then subsection (b) controls.[938 N.W.2d 431 2002 S.D. 141, ¶ 15, 654 N.W.2d 215, 218 (emphasis added).Causation under SDCL 62-1-(7)(b) [¶23.] Under the causation standard set out in SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b), "[t]he question i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT