Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 28255, 28266
Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
Writing for the Court | GILBERTSON, Chief Justice |
Citation | 915 N.W.2d 707 |
Parties | Tammy LAGLER, Claimant and Appellee, v. MENARD, INCORPORATED and Zurich American Insurance Co., Defendants and Appellants. |
Docket Number | 28255, 28266 |
Decision Date | 03 July 2018 |
915 N.W.2d 707
Tammy LAGLER, Claimant and Appellee,
v.
MENARD, INCORPORATED and Zurich American Insurance Co., Defendants and Appellants.
28255, 28266
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ON FEBRUARY 12, 2018
OPINION FILED July 3, 2018
SCOTT N. HEIDEPRIEM, KASEY L. OLIVIER of Heidepriem, Purtell & Siegel LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for claimant and appellee.
J.G. SHULTZ of Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants and appellants.
GILBERTSON, Chief Justice
Facts and Procedural History
[¶ 2.] On April 21, 2007, then-47-year-old Lagler injured her right ankle while working in the garden center of the Sioux Falls Menards.1 While stepping off a raised platform, Lagler lost her balance and landed on her right foot. She heard a "pop" and
[915 N.W.2d 710
felt a sharp pain on the inside of her right heel that extended up the back of her leg to the inside of her knee. Lagler also suffered minor injuries to her knee and elbow. Her ankle immediately swelled and was painful. Hours later, Lagler sought medical care. A physician’s assistant (P.A.), Rodney Ridenour, examined Lagler’s ankle and after ordering imaging, determined that the ankle was sprained and not fractured. Several days later, Lagler was examined by Dr. Ronald Rossing, who also diagnosed Lagler’s injury as a sprain. Dr. Rossing fit Lagler with a cast shoe and advised several work restrictions: wear the cast shoe, limit stair climbing, no lifting over 25 pounds, and no walking for longer than 45 minutes at a time.
[¶ 4.] Lagler’s condition did not improve, but physical examination revealed no objective reason for her pain. On September 5, 2007, writing in Lagler’s medical records, Dr. Bell noted: "[Lagler] is in for follow-up on her foot pain. She’s really not doing any better. She’s still complaining of a tremendous amount of kind of ankle, hind foot, mid foot pain." On September 24, after receiving Zurich’s approval, Dr. Bell ordered magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of Lagler’s right ankle and foot. Based on the MRI, Dr. Bell determined that there were no abnormalities and that Lagler’s ligaments and tendons were "intact without significant degenerative change." Unable to identify a cause of Lagler’s continuing pain, Dr. Bell referred Lagler to another physician, with Zurich’s approval.
[¶ 5.] Lagler began seeing Dr. David Watts, another board-certified orthopedic surgeon. On October 2, 2007, Lagler reported pain along her right instep. Dr. Watts injected lidocaine, a local anesthetic, into Lagler’s posterior tibialis tendon, and she experienced nearly total relief. But when Dr. Watts asked Lagler to perform a single heel raise, she was not able to do so. Dr. Watts diagnosed Lagler with posterior tibialis tendinitis and concluded it was related to work. After conservative treatments were unsuccessful, Dr. Watts performed surgery on Lagler to repair the tendon. During surgery, Dr. Watts discovered that Lagler’s tendon was frayed. Dr. Watts concluded that because Lagler had continuous pain in the same area since the April 2007 accident, her tendinitis and subsequent surgery resulted from a work-related injury.
[¶ 6.] Following surgery, Lagler was fitted with a progressive-weight-bearing CAM boot for rehabilitation. But on April 30, 2008, only three months after surgery, Lagler reported to P.A. Angela Majeres, who worked with Dr. Watts, that she had a resurgence of pain and new tenderness along her Achilles tendon. On June 2, Lagler returned to Dr. Watts and reported that while she no longer had pain in her
[915 N.W.2d 711
posterior tibialis tendon, she was experiencing new pain along her Achilles tendon. Dr. Watts diagnosed her with Achilles tendinitis. He restricted her to sedentary work only.
[¶ 8.] Zurich assigned claims specialist Mary Lemieux to Lagler’s case.2 Lemieux’s notes indicate she contacted Dr. Watts’s office on August 6, 2008, to request information on the proposed procedure. Viewing the delay as a refusal to cover the second surgery, Lagler filed a petition for a hearing with the Department on August 28. Lemieux’s notes during this time indicate she made several attempts to obtain information from Dr. Watts’s office. On September 15, records indicate a 5.8-minute-long telephone call occurred between Lemieux and one of more than fifty extensions at Dr. Watts’s office. Lemieux’s notes describe the September 15 call: "Angie Roberts, Dr. Watts’ nurse, called me. We discussed the etiology of this. Can be due to heels, i.e., pump bump but really it’s more of an idiopathic condition. Not related to ankle injury. Is she then disabled due to the Haglund’s? Yes, not due to the original injury." Testimony would later establish, however, that not only was this conversation not noted in Lagler’s records, nobody in Dr. Watts’s office is named "Angie Roberts." On September 17, without completing either an independent medical examination or an independent examination of Lagler’s medical records, Zurich sent a fax to Dr. Watts’s office that officially denied payment for Lagler’s second surgery. And on September 22, Zurich stopped all disability payments to Lagler.
[¶ 9.] On October 27, 2008, Lagler was examined by another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Eric Watson. Dr. Watson agreed with Dr. Watts’s diagnosis regarding Haglund’s deformity and retrocalcaneal bursitis. Dr. Watson also concluded that the surgery proposed by Dr. Watts would relieve Lagler’s pain, but Dr. Watson did not express an opinion as to whether Lagler’s April 2007 injury caused her current symptoms. Believing that Lagler was running out of nonsurgical options, Dr. Watson recommended Lagler undergo a second surgery to correct her Haglund’s deformity and to remove the inflamed bursa.
[¶ 10.] After first denying coverage for a second surgery and terminating compensation, Zurich then engaged Dr. Richard Farnham to conduct an independent examination of Lagler’s medical records.3 Dr.
[915 N.W.2d 712
Farnham did not physically examine Lagler; instead, he reviewed the treatment records of P.A. Ridenour and Drs. Rossing, Bell, Watts, and Watson. Dr. Farnham concluded that Lagler’s April 2007 injury did not cause either her posterior tibialis tendinitis or her Haglund’s deformity. He also concluded that not even Lagler’s first ankle surgery was causally related to the April 2007 injury.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ehlebracht v. Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLC, #29610
..." Anderson v. South Dakota Ret. Sys. , 2019 S.D. 11, ¶ 10, 924 N.W.2d 146, 148–49 (quoting Lagler v. Menard, Inc. , 2018 S.D. 53, ¶ 22, 915 N.W.2d 707, 715 ). Stated precisely:Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Matters of reviewable discretion are reviewed for abuse. The agency's factua......
-
Ehlebracht v. Crowned Ridge Wind II, LLC, 29610-a-MES
...Anderson v. South Dakota Ret. Sys., 2019 S.D. 11, ¶ 10, 924 N.W.2d 146, 148-49 (quoting Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 2018 S.D. 53, ¶ 22, 915 N.W.2d 707, 715). Stated precisely: Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Matters of discretion are reviewed for abuse. The agency's factual findings are ......
-
Skjonsberg v. Menard, Inc., 28438, 28445
...be affirmed or remanded but cannot be reversed or modified absent a showing of prejudice." Lagler v. Menard, Inc. , 2018 S.D. 53, ¶ 22, 915 N.W.2d 707, 715 (citations omitted).Analysis and Decision[¶11.] Employer and Insurer claim that the Department erred in granting Skjonsberg’s second mo......
-
Skjonsberg v. Menard, Inc., #28438
...be affirmed or remanded but cannot be reversed or modified absent a showing of prejudice." Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 2018 S.D. 53, ¶ 22, 915 N.W.2d 707, 715 (citations omitted).Analysis and Decision[¶11.] Employer and Insurer claim that the Department erred in granting Skjonsberg's second mot......