Arneson v. Gr Management, LLC

#30494, #30542-aff in pt & rev in pt-SPM
2024 S.D. 61

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

****

MICHAEL ARNESON, Claimant and Appellant,

v.

GR MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a
MINERAL PALACE CASINO, Employer and Appellee,

And

RISK ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC. Insurer and Appellee.

****

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA

****

THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA L. KLINGER
Judge

****

BRAD J. LEE of
Beardsley, Jensen, & Lee, Prof. LLC
Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for claimant
and appellant.

CHARLES A. LARSON
KRISTIN N. DERENGE of
Boyce Law Firm
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Attorneys for appellees
Employer and Insurer.

****

ARGUED
JUNE 5, 2024
OPINION FILED 10/16/24
#30494, #30542

MYREN, Justice

[¶1.] Michael Arneson suffered an electric shock while working for GR

Management, LLC d/b/a Mineral Palace Casino (Employer). Arneson claimed the

electric shock caused two conditions–atrial fibrillation and numbness in his right

hand. Employer and its Insurer, Risk Administration Services, Inc., paid benefits

for Arneson’s medical treatment immediately following the injury but denied his

claim for additional benefits for conditions they deemed were not caused by the

electric shock. The Department of Labor determined the electric shock was a major

contributing cause of both of Arneson’s conditions and that he was permanently and

totally disabled under the odd-lot category. 1

[¶2.] Employer/Insurer appealed to the circuit court, which determined that

the electric shock was a major contributing cause of Arneson’s hand condition but

not his heart condition. The circuit court also determined that Arneson was not

permanently and totally disabled. Arneson appealed, and Employer/Insurer filed a

notice of review. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶3.] Arneson was born on August 24, 1955. He did not graduate from high

school but later obtained his GED. He served in the United States Navy and was

honorably discharged. He later attended courses about electrical systems,

1. “The odd-lot doctrine ‘permits a finding of total disability for an injured
claimant who, though able to work sporadically, cannot obtain regular
employment and steady income and is thus considered an “odd lot” in the
labor market.’” Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 2018 S.D. 53, ¶ 14 n.4, 915 N.W.2d
707, 713 n.4 (quoting Odd-lot doctrine, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014)).

-1-
#30494, #30542

plumbing, machine operation, and swimming pool systems. He received OSHA

training and obtained several professional certifications. Arneson also earned an

associate degree in finance.

[¶4.] Arneson has had several jobs, mostly in repair and maintenance.

From 1974 to 1989, Arneson was a machine operator and parts technician; from

1989 to 1991, he was an over-the-road truck driver; from 1991 to 2006, he had his

own auto repair business; from 2006 to 2014, Arneson was head of maintenance and

cleaning of machinery; and from 2014 to 2015, he was a maintenance manager. In

2015, he began working as the maintenance manager for Employer, a hotel and

casino located in Deadwood, South Dakota, where his duties included overseeing

maintenance personnel, cleaners, and valet; painting, tiling, carpentry, snow

removal, lawn care, and miscellaneous cleaning; servicing exhaust units, A/C units,

and kitchen equipment; and monitoring the plumbing and electrical units. Arneson

described his job with the Employer as “heavy duty,” requiring him to lift and carry

up to 50 pounds, climb ladders, and frequently walk from one end of the hotel/casino

to the other.

[¶5.] On July 18, 2018, while working for Employer, Arneson suffered an

electric shock injury when a commercial exhaust fan shorted, sending 300 amperes

and 440 volts of electricity into his right hand, exiting his left foot. Arneson went to

the emergency room at the Lead-Deadwood Hospital, where he was diagnosed with

burns to four fingers of his right hand. At that time, Arneson’s heart rate was

regular, an electrocardiogram was normal, and he reported no heart palpitations.

Arneson was discharged from the emergency room that same day and provided with

-2-
#30494, #30542

an informational sheet that explained that a “strong electric shock (high voltage)

can harm the heart, muscles, and brain,” that “just 50 volts of electricity may be

enough to disrupt the heart’s rhythm,” and that symptoms of electric shock injury

included tingling and numbness, skin burns, chest pain, and very fast or irregular

heartbeat (palpitations).

[¶6.] Within a day or two, Arneson began experiencing mild heart

palpitations, which continued over the next several days. The palpitations did not

concern Arneson until July 30, 2018, when he experienced a fast heart rate while

working. Arneson returned to the emergency room, where he presented with chest

pain, dizziness, and heart palpitations. His heart rate was 195 beats per minute,

and his blood pressure was low (76/48). Arneson was admitted to the hospital and

diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AFib) (irregular heart rhythm) and

hyperthyroidism, neither of which had been previously diagnosed. Arneson

reported that the middle three fingers of his right hand were still numb.

[¶7.] While hospitalized, Arneson was examined by Dr. Holloway, who

noted: “The patient presents with no prior cardiac or endocrine history with acute

onset of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the setting of hyperthyroidism, currently of

unknown etiology.” Dr. Holloway also contemporaneously noted:

[Arneson] asked whether the hyperthyroidism and episode of
atrial fibrillation could be related to his recent electrical injury.
The electric shock wave clearly passed through his heart, as the
entry point was his right hand and the exit point was his left
foot. Electric shocks like this can lead to electrical instability of
the heart [and] persist for some time beyond the shock itself,
even if the shock itself was not immediately associated with the
development of arrhythmias. Therefore, I believe we must
consider his atrial fibrillation as [ ] work-related, having been
either triggered or significantly exacerbated by the electric

-3-
#30494, #30542

shock. I do not believe his hyperthyroidism was related to
electrical injury, however.

Arneson was discharged from the hospital the following day.

[¶8.] In a letter following Arneson’s discharge, Dr. Holloway informed

Arneson:

Your echocardiogram shows normal dimensions of each of your
heart chambers, normal pumping and relaxation function of
your heart muscle, and normal [s]tructure and function of your
heart valves. This is encouraging and suggests that you will be
able to maintain a normal heart rhythm, once we control your
hyperthyroidism.

After additional testing, Arneson was diagnosed with Graves’ disease. 2

[¶9.] In a note after Arneson’s office visit in April 2019, Dr. Holloway stated:

[Arneson] asked me to render a judgment regarding how much
of his current medical condition is related to the electrical shock.
His neurologic symptoms, namely numbness of the right index,
long and fourth finger, are clearly related to nerve damage from
the electrical shock. It is possible that these will resolve over
time, but it could take up to 2 years, and may not resolve at all.
He does have some residual disability from this. The numbness
interferes with his activities to the extent that he is clumsy
when using his hand. He is right-handed. He drops things
easily. This latter problem [sic] prior to the injury. Paroxysmal
atrial fibrillation is, in my judgment, also related to this
electrical shock injury. It caused electrical instability of the
heart, which can persist for an extended time afterwards.
Unfortunately, once a person has developed paroxysmal atrial
fibrillation from a triggering cause, they are still prone to have
episodes of this at a later date, long after the injury. His
hyperthyroidism was not caused by the electrical injury.
However, this condition was aggravated by electrical injury, to
the extent that the latter was responsible for the development of
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Although atrial fibrillation can be

2. “Graves’ disease is an autoimmune disorder that can cause hyperthyroidism,
or overactive thyroid.” See Graves’ Disease, Nat’l Inst. of Diabetes &
Digestive & Kidney Diseases, https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-
information/endocrine-diseases/graves-disease (last visited Oct. 9, 2024).

-4-
#30494, #30542

seen in patients who are hyperthyroid, due to thyroid
overactivity, he did not have fibrillation prior to the electrical
shock and I think it is probable (greater than 50%) that, absent
electrical shock, his thyroid condition would not have triggered
atrial fibrillation.

[¶10.] Arneson continued to have numbness in the fingers of his right hand,

which made it difficult for him to pick up and hold items with that hand. He

continued to have heart palpitations, which required him to rest throughout the

day. Arneson worked for Employer for approximately ten months after the injury,

without work restrictions. He “retired” in 2019 because it was difficult for him to

lift and move things, he could not walk across the hotel/casino without taking a

break, and he had to rely on his coworkers to assist him due to his decreased

strength and stamina. 3 He has not worked anywhere since then, but he has been

able to drive his motorcycle and perform mechanical work on vehicles and

motorcycles.

[¶11.] Arneson claimed that he was unable to work because of the work

injury and made a claim for workers’ compensation disability benefits. The insurer

determined that the electric shock was not a major contributing cause of his ongoing

conditions and denied medical bills incurred after July 20, 2018. Arneson filed a

petition for hearing with the Department on June 28, 2019. The Department heard

the case on September 14, 2022, and some of the evidence included testimony from:

• Arneson, who testified in person;
• Dr. Holloway, Arneson’s medical expert, whose testimony
was presented via deposition transcript;

3. Arneson stated he “retired” but explained that he resigned because he no
longer felt he could perform his job duties.

-5-
#30494, #30542

• Dr. Elkins, Employer/Insurer’s medical expert, who testified
in person;
• Dr. Brody, Employer/Insurer’s medical expert, whose
testimony was presented by deposition transcript;
• Tom Audet, Arneson’s vocational expert, who testified in
person; and
• James Carroll, Employer/Insurer’s vocational expert, who
testified in person.

[¶12.] The Department issued its decision on March 21, 2023, and concluded

Arneson proved that the electric shock was a major contributing cause of both his

heart and hand conditions and that he is permanently and totally disabled under

the odd-lot category. The Department awarded him past benefits from February 3,

2020, as well as ongoing medical and disability benefits. 4

[¶13.] Employer/Insurer appealed the Department’s decision to the circuit

court, which issued a memorandum opinion partially reversing the Department’s

decision. The circuit court determined the electric shock was a major contributing

cause of Arneson’s hand injury but was not a major contributing cause of his heart

condition. The circuit court also determined Arneson was not permanently and

totally disabled.

[¶14.] Arneson raised two issues on appeal, and Employer/Insurer raised one.

The three issues we consider are:

1. Whether the Department erred in concluding that
Arneson proved his workplace injury was a major
contributing cause of his heart condition.

4. The Department concluded, “Arneson has not proven that he was
permanently and totally disabled between the time he chose to leave his
employment and when Dr. Holloway signed off on the restrictions. Therefore,
any benefits he is entitled to regarding past permanent and total disability
benefits will not include the time between June 1, 2019, and February 3,
2020.”

-6-
#30494, #30542

2. Whether the Department erred in determining Arneson
proved his workplace injury was a major contributing
cause of his hand condition.
3. Whether the Department erred in determining Arneson
proved he was permanently and totally disabled and
entitled to benefits under the odd-lot category.

Standards of Review

[¶15.] “‘We review the Department’s decision in the same manner as the

circuit court.’” News Am. Mktg. v. Schoon, 2022 S.D. 79, ¶ 18, 984 N.W.2d 127, 133

(citations omitted). “‘The Department’s conclusions of law are fully reviewable.’”

Id. at 133–34 (citation omitted). “We review the Department’s findings of fact for

clear error and overturn them only if ‘after reviewing the evidence we are left with a

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Id. at 133 (citations

omitted). However, “‘[w]e review the Department’s factual determinations based on

documentary evidence, such as depositions and medical records, de novo.’” Id.

(citations omitted).

Decision

[¶16.] “In a workers’ compensation dispute, a claimant must prove all

elements necessary to qualify for compensation by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Darling v. W. River Masonry, Inc., 2010 S.D. 4, ¶ 11, 777 N.W.2d 363, 367 (citation

omitted). Sustaining a work-related injury does not automatically establish

entitlement to benefits for the claimed condition; instead, the claimant must prove

that the work-related injury is a major contributing cause of his claimed condition

and need for treatment. See id. The claimant does not have to prove the work

-7-
#30494, #30542

injury was the major contributing cause. See Brown v. Douglas Sch. Dist., 2002 S.D.

92, ¶ 23, 650 N.W.2d 264, 271 (citing SDCL 62-1-1(7)).

[¶17.] Causation must be established to a reasonable degree of medical

probability, not just possibility. The evidence must not be speculative but must be

“‘precise and well supported.’” Darling, 2010 S.D. 4, ¶ 12, 777 N.W.2d at 367

(citation omitted). “The testimony of medical professionals is crucial in establishing

the causal relationship between the work-related injury and the current claimed

condition ‘because the field is one in which laypersons ordinarily are unqualified to

express an opinion.’” Id. ¶ 13 (citations omitted).

1. Whether the Department erred in concluding that
Arneson proved his workplace injury was a major
contributing cause of his heart condition.

[¶18.] Arneson claims the circuit court erred in reversing the Department’s

determination that he established the electric shock was a major contributing cause

of his heart condition. Arneson contends the Department’s determination that the

electrocution was a major contributing cause of his heart condition is supported by

the expert testimony in this record. In determining that Arneson sustained his

burden, the Department found Dr. Holloway’s opinions on causation more

persuasive than the opinions of Drs. Brody and Elkins. The circuit court, however,

was persuaded by the opinions of Dr. Brody and Dr. Elkins.

Dr. Holloway’s background and medical opinions

[¶19.] Dr. Holloway did not testify live; consequently, “we do not apply the

clearly erroneous rule but review that testimony as though presented here for the

first time.” Day v. John Morrell & Co., 490 N.W.2d 720, 723 (S.D. 1992). Dr.

-8-
#30494, #30542

Holloway is an internist who regularly treats patients with both cardiac and thyroid

issues. According to Dr. Holloway, internists address medical problems in adults,

including conditions related to cardiology, which he has been “treating fairly

consistently for the past almost 30 years.” He previously treated patients who have

been electrocuted, including two or three “serious” cases. As Arneson’s treating

physician, Dr. Holloway examined Arneson on several occasions, including the day

of the electric shock.

[¶20.] Dr. Holloway explained how an electric shock can generally cause

damage to the body:

Well, any time there is a passage of an electrical current, you
know, through the body, you can get damage to the cells through
which the current passes. In the case of a burn on the hand, it’s
physically obvious. You look at it and you see a burn. Internal
injuries are not always as obvious. The ones we see most
commonly that manifest with symptoms are heart injuries
because of the fact that the heart is, basically, an electrical
organ as well as a muscular organ. Electrical circuits within the
heart regulate the rhythm. They can be disrupted directly by
the electrical current. And because the cells can be damaged by
the electrical current, there are often long-term lasting effects in
that people will have -- you know, harbor disturbances after
such an injury.

[¶21.] Specific to Arneson’s heart issue, Dr. Holloway explained:

In this case we had a patient who presented with atrial
fibrillation a short time after having had a significant electrical
injury. He had some minor palpitations apparently prior to
presenting to the emergency room and sustained atrial
fibrillation. It is very common for people after an electrical
injury to have rhythm disturbances. Generally what happens is
you have an excessive number of what are called premature
atrial contractions. These contractions, if they happen to occur
at the right time, can trigger sustained rhythm disturbances.
Sometimes those rhythm disturbances will last for a few
seconds. Sometimes they will last for a few minutes. It’s very
common for people who have -- who developed sustained atrial

-9-
#30494, #30542

fibrillation, as he did, to initially have some brief transient
palpitations that they don’t think much of and ignore. But then
they come in with a full-blown atrial fibrillation episode.

Dr. Holloway noted the majority of people with hyperthyroidism do not develop

atrial fibrillation. He reasoned:

If he had just come to your office and never had an electrical
injury and happened to have the two together, you could link it
as an association. But, again, only about 10 percent of people
with hyperthyroidism develop atrial fibrillation. He had an
electrical shock which we know causes electrical instability,
palpitations, extra beats, which can trigger atrial fibrillation.
However, only about 10 percent, range 5 to 15 percent of
patients with hyperthyroidism will develop atrial fibrillation. So
that’s, basically, the relationship between hyperthyroidism and
atrial fibrillation.

In Dr. Holloway’s opinion, “absent the electrical shock, it is more likely than not

that he would not have had atrial fibrillation.”

[¶22.] Dr. Holloway explained Arneson’s heart condition would not

necessarily get better over time because “unfortunately, once you have an electrical

injury, the predisposition to arrhythmias may persist for a long time and sometimes

permanently if there’s damage to the electrical system of the heart that regulates

rhythm.” When asked, “[w]ould you agree that the hyperthyroidism is also causing

the AFib,” Dr. Holloway stated:

It’s a predisposing factor. I’m reluctant to attribute any direct
causality to the hyperthyroidism because, like I said, the
majority of patients with hyperthyroidism did not develop atrial
fibrillation, but clearly it’s a predisposing factor.

[¶23.] Dr. Holloway testified, “the effect of an electrical injury on the heart

can persist for a long time afterwards. . . . If someone asked me [sic] I had an

electric shock a year ago and then an atrial fibrillation, is there a connection? I

-10-
#30494, #30542

would probably say no. But weeks to a few months afterwards, I would probably

attribute the arrhythmia at least in large part to the shock.” Dr. Holloway stated,

“even smaller shocks can cause disruption of the electrical circuitry in the heart for

a sustained period of time.”

Dr. Brody’s background and medical opinions

[¶24.] Dr. Brody’s testimony was presented by deposition; thus, we review it

as though it were presented here for the first time. Id. Dr. Brody has been a

cardiologist since 1989 and currently practices in St. Paul, Minnesota. He reported

substantial experience treating cardiac patients and sees patients with AFib

“[p]retty much every day.” Dr. Brody has treated patients who also have

hyperthyroidism, but he has never “treated anybody for their thyroid problem

specifically.” Instead, he would refer a patient with thyroid issues to an internist or

endocrinologist. He testified that he has only “very, very, very, infrequently”

treated a patient who was exposed to electric shock. He also performs independent

medical examinations (IMEs) and performs records reviews. Dr. Brody did not

examine Arneson; his opinions were based entirely on his review of Arneson’s

medical records and medical literature.

[¶25.] Based on the medical literature Dr. Brody reviewed, he concluded that

the electric shock was not a major contributing cause of Arneson’s atrial fibrillation.

He explained in his report:

Atrial fibrillation has been described only very rarely after an
electrical shock. Based on review of the literature, there
appeared to be a few handful (three or four) of case reports
dating back to 1954. There are no case reports describing
electrocution-induced atrial fibrillation that occurred 12 days

-11-
#30494, #30542

after an electrical injury. Mr. Arneson’s atrial fibrillation was
likely secondary to hyperthyroidism.

But Dr. Brody qualified that statement at his deposition, where he explained:

Now, I will change it a little bit. I redid the literature report a
couple of days ago, and there actually is one case that’s in a
journal that reported a person that actually got a low energy
shock and then -- let’s see -- sometime thereafter developed
atrial fib. But even in that particular article they kind of report
the case, but they do say in that particular report that it might
be related, but they didn’t really comment on whether it was
caused by the electrical shock.

...

There is a -- they commented in this article that they thought
the prevalence of atrial fibrillation after an electrical shock was
.6 percent. And one of the articles they cited -- it sounded like
all the cases that were cited, they had -- the cases had atrial
fibrillation at the time of the electrical shock that resolved
within 24 hours, so . . .

[¶26.] Dr. Brody’s opinion that the AFib “was likely secondary to

hyperthyroidism” was “based on experience and also literature review.” He stated,

“that association is a lot stronger than the association with electrical shock and

atrial fibrillation.”

[¶27.] When asked whether he expected to see irregular heart rhythms at the

time of the electric shock or soon after that, Dr. Brody answered, “[c]ould have. Not

necessarily, but he could have.” Dr. Brody was asked: “Would the fact that Mr.

Arneson was experiencing heart palpitations in the days following the electrical

shock make it more likely that the shock was the cause of his atrial fibrillation that

he entered into on July 30th?” He responded: “I don’t know. It would depend on

how he described it and what day it was. When you say days before, it could have

been July 19th, but it could have been July 29th also, so it would depend on when

-12-
#30494, #30542

and what he was actually feeling at the time.” Dr. Brody testified that if Arneson

was feeling heart palpitations the day after the electric shock, “it might possibly

make me think that there might have been a relationship between the shock and

what he was feeling in between. However, the fact that he has hyperthyroidism

might make me think that it’s not that close -- that the two weren’t so closely

related.” Dr. Brody also thought it “possible” that the “stress of the electrocution on

top of [the Graves’ disease] might have triggered something.”

[¶28.] Dr. Brody also could not rule out the possibility that the electricity

may have gone through Arneson’s heart when it entered through his hand and

exited through his foot. He acknowledged that even though there was no evidence

of structural damage to Arneson’s heart, the electricity could have gone through the

heart.

[¶29.] When asked whether AFib after an electric shock can happen, Dr.

Brody responded: “Yeah. It’s been reported it happens. Oh, it does happen.” Dr.

Brody agreed that “low-voltage electrocution may cause cardiac insult” and it “can

cause myocardial necrosis with ventricle fibrillation and also arrhythmias.” Dr.

Brody agreed that in one case reported in the literature, a patient subjected to “low

voltage of 220 to 240 volts” developed atrial fibrillation six weeks after the

electrocution occurred.

[¶30.] Dr. Brody also agreed with Dr. Holloway’s statement that it is “very

common for people after an electrical injury to have rhythm disturbances” and

explained the reasons for it:

[I]t’s just something that’s observed. You know, people can get
heart damage, the stress of the injury, it can trigger skipped

-13-
#30494, #30542

heartbeats. You know, if somebody gets some damage to the
heart muscle, that can trigger dangerous abnormal heart
rhythms. And as we pointed out, atrial fib has been reported
after an electrical injury.

He also explained, “[i]t’s possible that a person could have short bursts of atrial fib

and then have sustained atrial fib. It’s possible that a person could have some

palpitations due to some skipped heartbeats that aren’t atrial fib and then they

come in with atrial fib. Atrial fib, at least from a cardiologist’s standpoint, it’s so

common that anything can happen.” Dr. Brody was not aware of any event between

the time of the electric shock on July 18 and when Arneson presented to the ER on

July 30 that would cause him to go into AFib, or that would cause the

hyperthyroidism to become symptomatic.

Dr. Elkins’ background and medical opinions

[¶31.] Dr. Elkins testified in person before the Department. Consequently,

any credibility determinations the Department made with respect to his testimony

are entitled to deferential review using the clearly erroneous standard. Billman v.

Clarke Mach., Inc., 2021 S.D. 18, ¶ 22, 956 N.W.2d 812, 819. Dr. Elkins is an

occupational medicine physician who treats injured workers and conducts

employment-related physicals. Dr. Elkins works part-time for the VA as an

employee health physician who also does IMEs and records reviews. He currently

does not provide any treatment to patients. Although he had some exposure to

cardiac patients during his family practice training, Dr. Elkins does not treat

cardiac or thyroid patients as part of his practice and is not an expert in treating

patients with cardiac or thyroid issues.

-14-
#30494, #30542

[¶32.] In addition to a records review, Dr. Elkins examined and interviewed

Arneson. He indicated that he found Arneson to be forthcoming and credible. Dr.

Elkins found Arneson had no damage to his heart after the electric shock and had

no cardiac symptoms the day of or two days after the electric shock. Dr. Elkins

testified that the medication Arneson took for his hyperthyroidism seemed to help

the AFib and that when he stopped his medication, he would be symptomatic.

[¶33.] Dr. Elkins opined that there is a low likelihood that a low-voltage

injury would create long-term complications. He testified that after an electrical

shock, a person would experience heart issues within the first few hours. If there

were no heart issues after 12 or 24 hours, they are “not likely to have experienced

damage to the heart from the electricity.” Dr. Elkins testified:

Atrial fibrillation would be an uncommon rhythm from an
electrical injury no matter how far out you’re looking. There
really just aren’t -- there haven’t been enough cases of delayed
electrical fibrillation to really have any idea. You know, when
they do these studies and they follow people up for a few weeks
or a few months or however long they follow them, they just --
they don’t, you know, find that.

He testified it is more likely to develop AFib from hyperthyroidism than from

electric shock. Dr. Elkins admitted that just 50 volts of electricity may be enough to

disrupt the heart’s rhythm, and 600 volts could cause serious damage to the body.

He also acknowledged that all of Arneson’s symptoms are signs of someone with an

electrical shock injury and that a low-voltage electric shock can cause atrial

fibrillation. He also agreed it is “common for people who have developed sustained

atrial fibrillation to initially have some brief transient palpitations that they don’t

-15-
#30494, #30542

think much of and ignore but then they come in with a full-blown atrial fibrillation

episode.”

Consideration of the conflicting expert opinions

[¶34.] In Dr. Holloway’s opinion, the electric shock was a major contributing

cause of Arneson’s heart condition. He based that opinion in part on the fact that

following an electric shock, the most common injuries are to the heart because it is

an electrical organ, and there can be “long-term lasting effects” from an electric

shock. Because of that, it is “very common for people after an electrical injury to

have rhythm disturbances.” Dr. Holloway also took the timing of the heart

palpitations and AFib into account, noting that within days of the electric shock,

Arneson began having rhythm disturbances, which can trigger sustained rhythm

disturbances. Dr. Holloway became Arneson’s treating physician shortly after the

electrocution and was fully aware of his medical history. His opinions regarding the

causation of Arneson’s conditions are made more persuasive by the knowledge he

gained as Arneson’s treating physician and his experience treating patients with

cardiac problems and electrocution.

[¶35.] Drs. Brody and Elkins both attribute Arneson’s heart condition to

hyperthyroidism, which they admit was undiagnosed and asymptomatic prior to the

electric injury. They concluded that it was statistically more likely that Arneson’s

AFib was the result of hyperthyroidism rather than electric shock. This was based

on the fact that the medical literature they reviewed showed few examples of AFib

resulting from electrical shock and many examples where AFib was the result of

hyperthyroidism. An opinion based solely on statistical improbability ignores the

-16-
#30494, #30542

fact that, by definition, improbable events do occur. See Ingram v. Syverson, 674

N.W.2d 233, 237 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (noting “medicine is an imperfect science

and a plaintiff’s symptoms may not always be proven by tests and statistics.”).

[¶36.] Based on those statistics, Dr. Brody opined that developing AFib from

an electric shock was “uncommon.” However, that opinion is at odds with his

agreement that it is “very common for people after an electrical injury to have

rhythm disturbances.” Dr. Brody concluded that Arneson had “a normal EKG

immediately after the electrocution, which indicated that there was no evidence

that the shock of July 18th caused any structural heart disease that triggered the

atrial fibrillation.” Dr. Brody recognized, however, that the electricity could have

gone through Arneson’s heart without structural damage and that an irregular

rhythm would not necessarily be present right after the electric shock. Notably, Dr.

Brody was not “aware of any event between July 18th and July 30th other than the

electrical shock that would cause Mr. Arneson to go into atrial fibrillation.”

However, when made aware that Arneson experienced heart palpitations within

days of the electrical shock, he acknowledged there might be a relationship between

the electrical shock and the AFib.

[¶37.] Dr. Elkins’ opinions were also based on the relative probabilities of

developing AFib from electric shock and hyperthyroidism. However, he admitted

that all of Arneson’s symptoms are signs of someone with an electric shock injury

and that even 50 volts of electricity can cause AFib. While Arneson reported no

cardiac symptoms immediately following the incident, Dr. Elkins testified that it is

-17-
#30494, #30542

common for people to ignore brief transient palpitations and then have a full-blown

AFib episode.

[¶38.] The Department resolved the causation issue contrary to Dr. Elkins’

opinion, noting “[t]he Department is persuaded by Dr. Holloway’s analysis and his

conclusion that it is more likely than not that Arneson developed AFib as a result of

the electric shock.” Dr. Elkins testified live, and we “recognize the Department’s

advantage in judging credibility of witnesses and review for clear error.” News Am.

Mktg., 2022 S.D. 79, ¶ 32, 984 N.W.2d at 136 (citation omitted). “‘Due regard shall

be given to the opportunity of the agency to judge the credibility of the witness.’” Id.

at 137.

[¶39.] Arneson testified live and explained that in the “first couple of days”

after the injury, he had minor palpitations, which seemed to get worse over time.

The Department found Arneson to be credible and that finding is subject to review

under the clearly erroneous standard. Dr. Elkins opined “that had Arneson

sustained a heart injury from the electrical shock, he would have had symptoms of

damage within the first 12-24 hours following the incident, but he did not show

signs of damage or arrhythmia until twelve days later.” 5 Dr. Elkins’ opinion is

premised on facts inconsistent with those found by the Department. Indeed, Dr.

Elkins stated, “it was possible that somebody could experience arrhythmia days

after electrocution” and he agreed “that it was common for people who have

5. Dr. Brody also testified that if Arneson was feeling heart palpitations the day
after the electric shock, “it might possibly make me think that there might
have been a relationship between the shock and what he was feeling in
between.”

-18-
#30494, #30542

developed sustained AFib to have brief ‘transient palpitations’ that they ignore, but

then suffer a full-blown AFib episode.” As Arneson testified, this is precisely what

he experienced.

[¶40.] All of the medical experts agreed that an electric shock can affect the

heart’s rhythm, as can hyperthyroidism. Arneson’s heart condition is compensable

if the electric shock alone, or in combination with the hyperthyroidism, was a major

contributing cause of his heart condition. See Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor

Advert., Inc., 2014 S.D. 64, ¶ 29, 853 N.W.2d 878, 885–86 (citing SDCL 62-1-1(7)(b))

(“[i]f the injury combines with a preexisting disease or condition to cause or prolong

disability, impairment, or need for treatment, the condition complained of is

compensable if the employment or employment related injury is and remains a

major contributing cause of the disability, impairment, or need for treatment.”

(alteration in original)).

[¶41.] The Department’s factual findings related to in-person witness

testimony are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Having

assessed the testimony presented by deposition in a de novo review, we affirm the

Department’s determination that Arneson met his burden of proving that the

electric shock was a major contributing cause of his heart condition.

2. Whether the Department erred in determining
Arneson proved his workplace injury was a major
contributing cause of his hand condition.

[¶42.] It is uncontested that Arneson sustained burns to several of his fingers

on his right hand due to the electric shock. Employer/Insurer claims, however, that

Arneson’s right-hand numbness is unrelated to the electric shock, arguing that

-19-
#30494, #30542

Arneson failed to present expert testimony supporting this conclusion. Both the

Department and circuit court concluded the electric shock was a major contributing

cause of Arneson’s hand condition. By notice of review, Employer/Insurer appeals.

[¶43.] Dr. Holloway opined that Arneson’s issues with his hand—numbness,

tingling, weakness—were caused by the electric shock. He explained:

With respect to the hand and nerve injuries that created the
numbness and tingling and the difficulty with fine motor skills
and manipulating things, there is really not much we can do
except wait. When nerves are severely damaged, they die at the
origin of the spinal cord. They will sometimes regenerate. The
regenerative process can take up to two years. So sometimes
people will come in and they’ll have really, really, really bad
numbness of their hand or motor dysfunction and over time they
will recover a lot of that function. He’s recovered some of that
function. His numbness is not as bad as it was before when we
first started, but it’s still there.

[¶44.] Dr. Elkins testified that the electric shock was not a major

contributing cause of Arneson’s hand issues, “[w]ith the only possible exception

some numbness in the fingertips.” The basis for that opinion was that “his current

right hand symptoms are very different from what he had and what would have

been due to the electrical injury right after it happened.” Dr. Elkins noted that two

days after the injury, Arneson had “finger paresthesias,” he reported “slight

numbness in his fingertips,” and he was able to move his thumb fully at that time

but had “some tingling and a little bit of numbness.” 6 Dr. Elkins thought a

6. Paresthesia refers to “a burning, itching, tingling, or prickling sensation that
is usually felt in the hands, arms, legs, or feet.” See Glossary of Neurological
Terms, Paresthesia, Nat’l Inst. of Neurological Disorders & Stroke,
https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/disorders/glossary-
neurological-terms#-P- (last visited Oct. 9, 2024).

-20-
#30494, #30542

different cause needed to be considered because he could not explain why Arneson’s

fingers were getting worse. He testified:

Well, that’s something that changed over time, the location of
what his complaints were. And I pointed that out in the report.
The burns, I don’t find any record that there was burn to the
thumb. The burn seemed to be confined to the fingers. Okay?
And that’s consistent at least early on in the records. His
symptoms, when he went to the orthopedist the next day, in
addition to the burns, included some numbness into what would
be carpal tunnel distribution, which would include the thumb. I
didn’t see any record that the thumb was burned. I could see
records that the fingers were burned.

...

I mean, that’s -- that’s important in determining causation.
When the symptoms change over time, you -- medically you
should be rethinking the diagnosis. There was no incoordination
early on. The orthopedist documented normal strength, normal
range of motion. Later on he would lose range of motion in his
thumb. He would have incoordination. He didn’t know how
hard he was squeezing things. Pressure sensation, there are
different nerve fibers than nerves going to muscle or bringing
sensation back and forth. So that’s a significant difference as
well, just that he has lost pressure sensation. His symptoms are
significantly different and in a different location than he had
early on. The diagnosis needs to be rethought, in my opinion,
that all -- that all of his current symptoms are from that
electrical injury. That -- I don’t see the support for that
medically.

However, Arneson’s medical records reveal that two days after the electric shock,

Arneson told the orthopedic physician that he had numbness in his thumb, index

finger, and middle finger.

[¶45.] Dr. Elkins indicated that Arneson’s numbness and tingling in his

fingers could be attributed to carpal tunnel. However, he testified that electric

shock could also cause carpal tunnel, explaining that “anything that caused

increased pressure in the carpal tunnel can lead to carpal tunnel syndrome. So if he

-21-
#30494, #30542

had an electrical injury that caused burns on the fingers, it would be possible to

have, you know, even a slight degree of swelling that could produce the symptoms of

that. It’s possible.” Dr. Brody offered no opinion as to the causation of Arneson’s

hand issues.

[¶46.] The Department’s decision and the circuit court’s memorandum

opinion both relied on testimony from Dr. Holloway in support of their findings

regarding Arneson’s hand condition. We find no clear error in the Department’s

credibility determinations of the in-person witnesses, and we agree with the

Department’s assessment of the witnesses whose deposition testimony was

presented. See News Am. Mktg., 2022 S.D. 79, ¶ 32, 984 N.W.2d at 136–37. The

record supports the Department’s determination that Arneson sustained his burden

of proving the electric shock was a major contributing cause of his hand condition.

3. Whether the Department erred in determining
Arneson proved he was permanently and totally
disabled and entitled to benefits under the odd-lot
category.

[¶47.] Arneson claims the circuit court erred in reversing the Department’s

determination that he established he is permanently and totally disabled under the

odd-lot category. “‘Whether a claimant is entitled to odd-lot disability benefits is a

question of fact subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard.’” Fair v.

Nash Finch Co., 2007 S.D. 16, ¶ 19, 728 N.W.2d 623, 632 (citation omitted). “The

facts of each case determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the

Department’s findings that the claimant was permanently and totally disabled

under the odd-lot doctrine.” Id. ¶ 20, 728 N.W.2d at 633.

[¶48.] SDCL 62-4-53 sets forth the criteria to establish permanent disability:

-22-
#30494, #30542

An employee is permanently totally disabled if the employee’s
physical condition, in combination with the employee’s age,
training, and experience and the type of work available in the
employee’s community, cause the employee to be unable to
secure anything more than sporadic employment resulting in an
insubstantial income.

Arneson has attempted to establish inclusion in the odd-lot category by the first of

two avenues explained in Fair, 2007 S.D. 16, ¶ 19, 728 N.W.2d at 632:

[I]f the claimant is obviously unemployable, then the burden of
production shifts to the employer to show that some suitable
employment is actually available in claimant’s community for
persons with claimant’s limitations. Obvious unemployability
may be shown by: (1) showing that his physical condition,
coupled with his education, training, and age make it obvious
that he is in the odd-lot total disability category, or (2)
persuading the trier of fact that he is in fact in the kind of
continuous, severe and debilitating pain which he claims.

(Citation omitted.)

[¶49.] At the time of his injury, Arneson was nearly 63 years old, and he was

67 years old at the time of the Department’s hearing. He obtained his GED and an

associate degree in finance, but all his job experience involved maintenance and

repair.

Dr. Holloway’s opinions on Arneson’s limitations

[¶50.] Dr. Holloway explained that Arneson’s heart issues limit his ability to

work because he has “problems with being dizzy, lightheaded, unable to stand,” and

because of AFib, he could fall or collapse. Therefore, he discouraged Arneson from

“engaging in occupations where some loss of consciousness or awareness or

dizziness or lightheadedness can be an injury, so we don’t like them doing roofing or

climbing on ladders. And a lot of the manual occupations are like that. You know,

working on a highway, for example.”

-23-
#30494, #30542

[¶51.] Regarding Arneson’s hand function, Dr. Holloway testified:

He has difficulty with fine motor skills. He can’t feel things that
he’s picking up or touching, which makes it essentially unsafe
for him to deal with any -- and, more importantly, it’s his
dominant hand. So he can’t sense hot and cold well. He can’t
necessarily sense pain well, meaning that if he were to be
operating a piece of equipment and be touching it in a way that
would cause an injury, whereas you and I would recognize that
immediately, he won’t recognize it immediately and, therefore,
you know, sustain a serious injury simply because of the lack of
sensation.

Dr. Holloway also stated:

[Arneson] still has objective sensory loss in distribution of the
nerves that were damaged before in his right hand. He grabs
things differently than you and I do. He won’t use his thumb,
the tip of his thumb to grab things because he can’t feel with it.
So he grabs with the joint and the thumb rather than the tip of
the thumb (indicating), and that’s making it difficult. . . .

Dr. Holloway opined that Arneson’s “loss of sensation of the fingertips and the

thumb” has made that hand “much less useful. He can grab things, but he can’t

really feel what he’s grabbing.” He explained that due to that sensory loss, Arneson

could “sustain a serious hand injury in a situation where they were operating

equipment or machinery,” and there are a “lot of things that he can’t do safely with

his hands anymore.”

[¶52.] Dr. Holloway testified about Arneson’s limitations due to his heart and

hand conditions and the resultant work restrictions, including a two-hour per day

time limit for standing or walking and a four-hour per day time limit for sitting. He

testified that Arneson was also limited in the ability to use his right hand because

he could not grasp or detect hot and cold. Dr. Holloway indicated it would be

-24-
#30494, #30542

dangerous for him to operate machinery. Dr. Holloway imposed work restrictions

that were consistent with those considerations.

Dr. Elkins’ opinions on Arneson’s limitations

[¶53.] In his IME report, Dr. Elkins opined that none of Arneson’s work

restrictions were the result of the electric shock injury. He stated the restrictions

for the “subjective partial numbness” of those fingers are “not clearly related” to the

electric shock. He noted Arneson had been “able to work with the numbness

without any related restrictions for close to a year before retiring,” and Arneson

“currently displays light callousing of all his fingers, indicating use of the right

hand is ongoing despite the subjective numbness.”

Audet’s vocational opinions

[¶54.] Arneson presented in-person testimony from Tom Audet, a certified

vocational rehabilitation counselor. Audet completed a vocational evaluation of

Arneson to determine his ability to work and earn a living in light of his injuries.

Audet testified that considering Arneson’s past work history and his present work

restrictions, there was just one available job that was appropriate for Arneson, and

it was a supervisor position. The other potentially available positions “ranged from

medium work to heavy work and, in my opinion, would require good use of both

upper extremities to perform those occupations for reaching, handling, fingering,

feeling, not so much feeling, but reaching, handling and fingering would probably in

those occupations have to be done in a frequent level and I think he would have to

have good bimanual dexterity to perform those jobs.” In Audet’s opinion, while

there were some sedentary positions potentially available to Arneson, “when you

-25-
#30494, #30542

factored in his residual functional capacity, I didn’t find that he could do those

sedentary jobs.” 7

[¶55.] Audet concluded:

I don’t think he’s capable of earning at his workers’
compensation rate. And, in all likelihood, I think with the
problem that he’s having with his right hand, the fatigue issues
and the AFib issues that even maintaining gainful employment
is going to be very problematic. I don’t think he’s employable.

Audet opined that Arneson could not do sedentary assembly-type jobs because he

could not use both hands well enough. And, while he may be physically capable of

doing a customer service job, he would “have to primarily do the job with his left

hand, with his nondominant hand and I would expect that he would be a lot slower,

especially using the hunt and peck [typing] method.” He also explained that with a

customer service job, if Arneson had “customers standing there waiting to talk to

him and they want his services and he goes into an AFib situation and has to

retreat or withdraw from that situation and the customers are just sitting there

kind of stranded wondering what’s going on and [Arneson] is not able to handle the

situation or deal with it.”

Carroll’s vocational opinions

[¶56.] Employer/Insurer’s vocational expert, James Carroll, testified that the

labor market in the northern Black Hills is very good, there is a shortage of

qualified employees, and employers are willing to make accommodations. Carroll

7. According to Audet, “residual functional capacity” is “the types of physical
abilities that a person would have after they’ve been injured.” It is based on
things like the physician’s work restrictions, a functional capacity evaluation,
and on the claimant’s subjective feeling of what they can and cannot do
physically.

-26-
#30494, #30542

testified that it did not make sense that Arneson could only sit for a limited period

of time but could drive up to six hours a day and that Arneson could not “simple

grasp,” but he could “firm grasp.” In other words, he did not accept and apply

Arneson’s work restrictions imposed by Dr. Holloway.

[¶57.] In Carroll’s opinion, Arneson is marketable as an employee because of

his education and good work history. He noted several jobs he believed Arneson

could do that were within Arneson’s restrictions and that paid at least his workers’

compensation rate. Carroll concluded:

Based on a labor market survey conducted in the Northern
Black Hills, including Lead-Deadwood, Sturgis, and Spearfish,
there have been employment opportunities identified which
would be within Mr. Arneson’s physical capabilities, skill levels
and which would pay at or above his workers compensation
benefit rate. . . . It is my vocational opinion, Mr. Arneson is
employable in the Northern Black Hills in an occupation within
his physical capabilities, skill levels and which would pay at or
above his workers compensation benefit rate.

[¶58.] Both Audet and Carroll testified in person before the Department.

Audet reviewed Arneson’s medical history, the medical experts’ reports, and the

report of the Employer/Insurer’s vocational expert, Carroll. While Audet was able

to locate jobs that Arneson was qualified for and could perform within the work

restrictions, he opined that due to his age and restrictions, it was futile for him to

seek a job, and retraining was not feasible. He, therefore, concluded Arneson was

permanently and totally disabled and not capable of earning his workers’

compensation rate. The Department accepted Audet’s opinion as “accurate.”

Immediately after outlining Audet’s opinions, the Department concluded that

Arneson was obviously unemployable.

-27-
#30494, #30542

[¶59.] Carroll found jobs that he believed Arneson could do but disregarded

some of Arneson’s limitations, concluding they were subjective. When Carroll (or

his employee) spoke to employers regarding possible jobs for Arneson, they informed

them he had limited use of his right hand, but they said nothing about his fatigue or

AFib. In Eite v. Rapid City Area School District 51-4, 2007 S.D. 95, ¶ 28, 739

N.W.2d 264, 273, the Court held an “expert’s listing of jobs that focuses on a

claimant’s capabilities to the exclusion of his limitations is insufficient as a matter

of law. When prospective employers were not informed of the nature of the

limitations they needed to accommodate, there was no basis for the expert’s opinion

in concluding that the employers were willing to make modifications to meet those

limitations.”

[¶60.] Both vocational experts testified in person, and the Department’s

assessment of their credibility is entitled to deferential review. By accepting

Audet’s assessment of Arneson’s employability, the Department implicitly rejected

Carroll’s assessment. Considering Arneson’s age (beyond the typical age of

retirement), his education and work experience, work restrictions, and physical

condition, we are not firmly convinced the Department erred in determining

Arneson met his prima facie showing of obvious unemployability.

[¶61.] The Department concluded that because Arneson sustained his burden

of proving obvious unemployability, it was “unnecessary for the Department to

consider the availability of suitable employment in his community.” This was an

error. Once Arneson established he was obviously unemployable, the Department

was required to determine if the Employer/Insurer demonstrated that some suitable

-28-
#30494, #30542

employment within Arneson’s limitations was actually available. See Fair, 2007

S.D. 16, ¶ 19, 728 N.W.2d at 632. While the Department did not specifically

address the availability of suitable employment, it did issue findings of facts and

conclusions of law related to that issue.

[¶62.] The Department found “Arneson has physical limitations that restrict

what sorts of jobs he can do involving his hands, and he must take regular,

unpredictable breaks of between 10 and 30 minutes.” The Department also stated

that Arneson “is within the age of retirement and would require training in a new

position.” The Department noted that Audet was unable to find jobs that Arneson

could perform with his restrictions, education, and work history. Audet’s search for

suitable employment for Arneson included his review of all relevant testimony and

reports, including those of Employer/Insurer’s expert Carroll, and Arneson’s

residual functional capacity based on the physical capacities form.

[¶63.] The record contains additional evidence regarding whether suitable

employment was available. Audet explained the basis for his conclusion that other

occupations were not suitable for Arneson, including the fact that many of them

“require good use of both upper extremities to perform those occupations for

reaching, handling, fingering, feeling, not so much feeling, but reaching, handling

and fingering would probably in those occupations have to be done in a frequent

level and I think he would have to have good bimanual dexterity to perform those

jobs.” Audet also excluded many sedentary occupations, noting that while Arneson

“might have some computer skills and things like that and that he had some decent

computer skills pre-injury, . . . when you factored in his residual functional capacity,

-29-
#30494, #30542

I didn’t find that he could do those sedentary jobs.” Audet concluded: “I don’t think

that even if there were some kind of job he could do on a part-time basis, I don’t

think I could identify anything that he could earn at his workers’ comp rate.”

[¶64.] Audet’s testimony refuted Carroll’s opinion that Arneson could find

suitable employment as a front desk associate, explaining that Arneson has no

experience in such a position and the difficulties Arneson would have in performing

the duties of that position, including typing one-handed, standing for a long time,

needing to take breaks, and needing to withdraw if he goes into AFib. Audet

explained that employment as a cashier or as a food service worker was also

impractical for many of the same reasons, based on his limitations with his grip,

lifting, and dexterity. As the Court explained in Billman, while Employer/Insurer

“do not need to place [claimant] in a job, they need to show more than the ‘mere

possibility of employment.’” Billman, 2021 S.D. 18, ¶ 48, 956 N.W.2d at 825

(quoting Capital Motors, LLC v. Schied, 2003 S.D. 33, ¶ 12, 660 N.W.2d 242, 247

(upholding Department’s finding that employer failed to show suitable employment

available because it identified only two positions and claimant was not qualified for

one position and the other may have paid below his workers’ compensation rate))

(citing Spitzack v. Berg Corp., 532 N.W.2d 72, 76 (S.D. 1995) (circuit court

overturned Department’s finding that employer found suitable employment because

employer only found one position which was not suitable for claimant’s limitations)).

[¶65.] Based on our review of the entire settled record, we conclude that the

Employer/Insurer failed to establish there was suitable employment for Arneson

with his work restrictions and considering his training and work experience.

-30-
#30494, #30542

Accordingly, we affirm the Department’s determination that Arneson was

permanently and totally disabled under the odd-lot category.

[¶66.] The circuit court erred in reversing the Department’s determinations

on the causation of Arneson’s AFib and permanent total disability. We reverse this

part of the circuit court’s ruling and reinstate the Department’s original order as to

those determinations. We affirm the circuit court’s determination that the

Department correctly found that Arneson’s work injury was a major contributing

cause of his hand condition.

[¶67.] JENSEN, Chief Justice, concurs.

[¶68.] SALTER, Justice, concurs specially.

[¶69.] KERN and DEVANEY, Justices, concur in part and dissent in part.

SALTER, Justice (concurring specially).

[¶70.] I agree with my colleagues on the causation issues; Arneson

established that his employment was a major contributing cause of both his heart

arrythmia and his hand condition. In my view, Arneson also established that he

was entitled to permanent total disability benefits, as determined by the

Department, and there is no need to remand the case to consider the availability of

employment in the community. As it relates to the Department’s vexing statement

that it was “unnecessary . . . to consider the availability of suitable employment in

his community” because Arneson made a “prima facie showing of permanent and

total disability[,]” I offer two observations.

-31-
#30494, #30542

[¶71.] First, the statement did not relate broadly to the Department’s overall

permanent total disability analysis. The Department separated the permanent

total determination into two distinct time periods: (1) the time after Arneson

voluntarily left his job and retired until Dr. Holloway imposed work restrictions on

February 3, 2020; and (2) the time after February 3, 2020. See n.4, supra. The

Department’s incorrect legal statement related only to its decision to deny

permanent total disability benefits for the pre-February 3 period, and that decision

is not an issue in this appeal.

[¶72.] Second, given its context, I suspect that the patently erroneous

sentence may well reflect a syntax error and probably should read, “. . . Arneson has

not met his prima facie showing . . . .” In the Department’s written decision, this

statement is contained within a sentence that concludes the paragraph in which the

Department details the reasons why Arneson has not demonstrated he was

permanently and totally disabled prior to February 3, 2020. Such a failure of proof

for this initial period logically explains why the Department would decline further

inquiry into suitable employment in the community. Significantly, the non sequitur

sentence is an anomaly; SDCL 62-4-53’s burden-shifting rules are correctly stated

elsewhere in the Department’s decision and findings and conclusions.

[¶73.] Regardless, the erroneous statement did not impact the permanent

total disability finding for the period after February 3, 2020, which is the only

decision before us on appeal. For this determination, the Department considered

the expert testimony of Audet and Carroll and concluded that Arneson is “obviously

unemployable” relying upon Audet’s opinions which it found to be “accurate.”

-32-
#30494, #30542

DEVANEY, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part).

[¶74.] I agree with the Department’s conclusion that Arneson proved his

work injury was a major contributing cause of both his heart and hand conditions. I

also agree that the Department did not err in determining that Arneson made a

prima facie showing that he is obviously unemployable. However, while I further

agree with the majority opinion’s determination that the Department erred when it

thereafter determined it was “unnecessary for the Department to consider the

availability of suitable employment in his community,” I disagree with the

remainder of the majority opinion’s analysis, which undertakes a de novo review of

live witness testimony and makes findings of fact on an issue the Department did

not address.

[¶75.] Prior to doing so, the majority opinion acknowledges that the

Department “did not specifically address the availability of suitable employment[.]”

But the majority opinion then suggests the issue can nevertheless be considered on

appeal because the Department issued findings of fact and conclusions of law

“related” to that issue. However, all the facts it then points to relate to the

Department’s determination that Arneson made a prima facie showing of obvious

unemployability due to his “age, training, and experience and the type of work

available in [his] community.” See SDCL 62-4-53. Such findings were based on the

testimony from Arneson’s treating doctor and Audet, Arneson’s vocational expert.

Importantly, the Department made no findings regarding the testimony from

Carroll, the Employer/Insurer’s vocational expert, relating to the availability of

employment in the community. The majority opinion overlooks this by suggesting

-33-
#30494, #30542

that the Department’s acceptance of Audet’s assessment of Arneson’s employability

means the Department implicitly rejected Carroll’s assessment.

[¶76.] There are two problems with this suggestion. First, as recognized in

SDCL 62-4-53, a prima facie showing of unemployability can be overcome with

evidence that there is suitable work regularly and continuously available in the

community meeting the necessary income requirement referenced in the statute,

notwithstanding an employee’s physical condition, age, training, and experience.

Billman v. Clarke Machine, Inc., 2021 S.D. 18, ¶¶ 24–25, 956 N.W.2d 812, 819–20.

Carroll offered such testimony. Second, the Department’s opinion expressly tells us

that it did not “implicitly reject Carroll’s assessment.” Instead, the Department

made clear that it was not addressing the question because it was “unnecessary” to

consider this precise evidence.

[¶77.] The majority opinion nevertheless does what the Department should

have done, but did not do, by weighing the competing live testimony from Audet and

Carroll. This approach is contrary to our well-settled rule that we defer to the

finder of fact who is better positioned to review and make credibility determinations

relating to live testimony. In re Jarman, 2015 S.D. 8, ¶ 18, 860 N.W.2d 1, 8–9

(noting that “‘we defer to the agency on the credibility of a witness who testified live

because the agency is in a better position [than an appellate court] to evaluate the

persuasiveness of witness testimony’” (alteration in original) (quoting In re

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Air Quality Permit Application of

Hyperion Energy Ctr., 2013 S.D. 10, ¶ 41, 826 N.W.2d 649, 661)). Notably, the

majority opinion makes the requisite finding that was not made by the Department,

-34-
#30494, #30542

namely that “Employer/Insurer failed to establish there was suitable employment

for Arneson with his work restrictions and considering his training and work

experience.” In my view, the issue of whether Arneson established that he is

entitled to total permanent disability benefits should be remanded to the

Department to consider, in the first instance, and whether the Employer/Insurer’s

evidence established there are suitable jobs available to Arneson in the community.

[¶78.] KERN, Justice, joins this writing.

-35-