Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke

9 Citing cases

  1. Steinberg v. State Dept. of Military Affairs

    2000 S.D. 36 (S.D. 2000)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that injuries suffered when an employee slipped on ice on a road within her employer's premises were compensable

    Prior to its amendment in 1995, SDCL 62-1-1(7) provided the definition for "injury" or "personal injury" as "only injury arising out of and in the course of the employment, and shall not include a disease in any form except as it shall result from the injury." Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 11, 597 N.W.2d 677, 680 n. 7. In 1995, the legislature twice amended the workers' compensation law to add the relevant language of "major contributing cause."

  2. Wise v. Brooks Const. Services

    2006 S.D. 80 (S.D. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    We have further said "South Dakota law requires [Wise] to establish by medical evidence that the `employment or employment conditions are a major contributing cause of the condition complained of.' `A possibility is insufficient and a probability is necessary.'" Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 11, 597 N.W.2d 677, 680 (internal citation and emphasis omitted) (citing Maroney v. Aman, 1997 SD 73, H9, 565 N.W.2d 70, 73 (citation omitted)). [¶ 22.] Employer argues that Wise failed to meet his burden of proof because Dr. Hoversten's opinion did not use the exact words of the statutes.

  3. Davidson v. Horton Industries

    641 N.W.2d 138 (S.D. 2002)   Cited 5 times
    In Horton v. Davidson, 135 Pa. St. 186, the court held that the defence of adverse possession fails when there was a distinct recognition of plaintiff's title by the defendant in a letter written by him.

    We have often stated that "`[u]nder SDCL 1-26-37, when the issue is a question of fact, then the clearly erroneous standard is applied to the agency's findings; however, when the issue is a question of law, the actions of the agency are fully reviewable.'" Brady Mem'l Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 8, 597 N.W.2d 677, 679-80 (quoting Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Constr., 1998 SD 27, ¶ 12, 576 N.W.2d 237, 240 (citations omitted)). Under our review, "we are required to give `great weight to the findings and inferences made by Department on factual questions.'" Id. (citations omitted).

  4. Grauel v. S.D. School of Mines

    2000 S.D. 145 (S.D. 2000)   Cited 21 times
    Holding claimant’s medical evidence insufficient to establish causation amid contrary evidence that remaining symptoms after arthroscopic surgery were due to preexisting degenerative arthritis

    Our law requires a claimant to establish that his injury arose out of his employment by showing a causal connection between his employment and the injury sustained. Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 11, 597 N.W.2d 677, 680 (citing Maroney v. Aman, 1997 SD 73, ¶ 9, 565 N.W.2d 70, 73). Although a claimant must establish this causal connection, the "employment need not be the direct or proximate cause of injury. . . ." Canal Ins. Co. v. Abraham, 1999 SD 90, ¶ 12, 598 N.W.2d 512, 516 (citing Bergren v. S.E. Gustafson Constr. Co., 75 S.D. 497, 68 N.W.2d 477 (1955); Anderson v. Hotel Cataract, 70 S.D. 376, 17 N.W.2d 913 (1945)).

  5. McQuay v. Fischer Furniture

    2011 S.D. 91 (S.D. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    We have emphasized, “[a] claimant need not prove his work-related injury is a major contributing cause of his condition to a degree of absolute certainty.” Id. ¶ 12 (citing Brady Mem'l Home v. Hantke, 1999 S.D. 77, ¶ 16, 597 N.W.2d 677, 681). But the claimant must establish causation “to a reasonable degree of medical probability, not just possibility.”

  6. Darling v. West River Masonry

    2010 S.D. 4 (S.D. 2010)   Cited 24 times

    Brown v. Douglas Sch. Dist., 2002 SD 92, ¶ 23, 650 N.W.2d 264, 271. [¶ 12.] A claimant need not prove his work-related injury is a major contributing cause of his condition to a degree of absolute certainty. Brady Mem'l Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 16, 597 N.W.2d 677, 681 (citations omitted). Causation must be established to a reasonable degree of medical probability, not just possibility.

  7. Horn v. Dakota Pork

    709 N.W.2d 38 (S.D. 2006)   Cited 6 times
    In Horn, a workers' compensation claimant suffered two work-related back injuries: one in 1997 while employed by Dakota Pork, and another in 2000 while employed by River-side Manufacturing. The issue in Horn was whether either injury was a major contributing cause of his back condition.

    The evidence necessary 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, 681. SDCL 62-1-1(7) sets forth the showing necessary to establish a compensable work injury and provides in pertinent part:

  8. Byrum v. Dakota Wellness Foundation

    2002 S.D. 141 (S.D. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    Further, an award cannot rest upon speculative medical evidence. Brady Memorial Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 16, 597 N.W.2d 677 [¶ 17.] Dr. Cho's testimony rests on sweeping conclusions without the benefit of Byrum's previous medical records, which document some thirty chiropractic visits for back pain between 1994 and 1995.

  9. Belhassen v. John Morrell Company

    613 N.W.2d 531 (S.D. 2000)   Cited 8 times

    We have often stated that "`[u]nder SDCL 1-26-37, when the issue is a question of fact, then the clearly erroneous standard is applied to the agency's findings; however, when the issue is a question of law, the actions of the agency are fully reviewable.'" Brady Mem'l Home v. Hantke, 1999 SD 77, ¶ 8, 597 N.W.2d 677, 679-80 (quoting Wagaman v. Sioux Falls Constr., 1998 SD 27, ¶ 12, 576 N.W.2d 237, 240 (citing Loewen v. Hyman Freightways, Inc., 1997 SD 2, ¶ 6, 557 N.W.2d 764, 766 (citations omitted))). Under our review, "we are required to give `great weight to the findings and inferences made by Department on factual questions.'" Id. (quoting Wagaman, 1998 SD 27, ¶ 12, 576 N.W.2d at 240 (citing Sopko v. C R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶ 6, 575 N.W.2d 225, 228 (citations omitted))).