Brown v. Douglas School et al 2002 SD 92
Annotate this CaseDorothy J. Brown
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Douglas School District
Employer and Appellant,
And
Associated School Boards of South Dakota
Worker’s Compensation Trust Fund
Provider and Appellant.
[2002 SD 92]
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal From The Circuit Court of
The Seventh Judicial Circuit
Pennington County, South Dakota
Hon. Merton B. Tice, Jr., Judge
James D. Leach of
Viken, Viken, Pechota, Leach & Dewell
Rapid City, South Dakota
Attorneys for plaintiff and appelle.
Karla L. Engle of
Tieszen Law Office
Pierre, South Dakota
Attorneys for appellants.
Argued on February 12, 2002
Opinion Filed 07/31/02
[¶1.] Dorothy Brown (Brown) filed a petition for worker’s compensation benefits with the South Dakota Department of Labor (Department) seeking an award of permanent total disability. After a hearing, the Department denied Brown’s request. Brown appealed and the trial court reversed the Department’s order. Brown’s employer, the Douglas School District (the School), and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Workers Compensation Trust Fund appeal. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE[¶9.] The standard of review in an administrative appeal is governed by SDCL 1-26-36. Fact questions are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard[1] and questions of law are reviewed de novo. Wendell v. South Dakota Dept. of Transp., 1998 SD 130, ¶5, 587 NW2d 595, 597. We give deference, Watertown Coop. Elevator Assn. v. State Dept. of Revenue, 2001 SD 56, ¶10, 627 NW2d 167, 171, and great weight to the agency or hearing officer on fact questions. Goebel v. Warner Transp., 2000 SD 79, ¶10, 612 NW2d 18, 21; Kurtz v. SCI, 1998 SD 37, ¶¶9-10, 576 NW2d 878, 881-82; Sopko, 1998 SD 8 at ¶6, 575 NW2d at 228. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Goebel, 2000 SD 79 at ¶10, 612 NW2d at 21; Kurtz, 1998 SD 37 at ¶9, 576 NW2d at 882; Sopko v. C&R Transfer Co., Inc., 1998 SD 8, ¶6, 575 NW2d at 228. When factual determinations are made on the basis of documentary evidence, however, we review the matter de novo, unhampered by the clearly erroneous rule. Watertown Coop. Elevator, 2001 SD 56 at ¶10, 627 NW2d at 171; Kurtz, 1998 SD 37 at ¶10, 576 NW2d at 882. Mixed questions of fact and law are fully reviewable. Herr v. Dakotah, Inc., 2000 SD 90, ¶11, 613 NW2d 549, 552.
[¶10.] In this case, the Department’s decision was made on deposition testimony from the doctors and experts. The only live testimony came from claimant Brown.[2] The trial court applied the proper de novo standard of review. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law that are required when an administrative decision is reversed, in order to enable the Supreme Court to review the trial court’s reasoning. SDCL 1-26-36; Schroeder v. Dept. of Social Services, 529 NW2d 589, 591-92 (SD 1995).
[¶11.] Brown argues that the standard of review on appeal from the trial court’s reversal of the agency decision is the clearly erroneous standard set forth in SDCL 15-6-52(a). In other words, the trial court reviews the agency decision de novo, unhampered by the clearly erroneous rule, but this Court would be bound to review the trial court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard.
[¶12.] The Supreme Court’s review of a trial court’s findings of fact was amended in 2000 when the legislature revised SDCL 15-6-52(a). This Court noted the following in Parmely v. Hildebrand:
This case was presented to the trial court through prepared written statements of facts, exhibits, and depositions. In such a situation, we would have previously reviewed a trial court’s findings of fact de novo. However, last year the legislature amended SDCL 15-6-52(a), which now requires all findings of fact, “whether based on oral or documentary evidence” to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. SL 2000, ch. 91, § 1. Therefore, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless “we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
2001 SD 83, ¶6, 630 NW2d 509, 512 (internal citations omitted). Brown buttresses her argument with SDCL 1-26-37, which provides:
An aggrieved party or the agency may obtain a review of any final judgment of the circuit court under this chapter by appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal shall be taken as in other civil cases. The Supreme Court shall give the same deference to the findings of fact, conclusions of law and final judgment of the [trial] court as it does to other appeals from the circuit court. Such appeal may not be considered de novo.
Brown contends that the “same deference to findings of fact” is the clearly erroneous standard as set forth in SDCL 15-6-52(a). We disagree.
[¶13.] The question of whether the new standard of review applied to trial court appellate review of an administrative decision was alluded to in Webster Educ. Ass’n v. Webster Sch. Dist., where this Court stated:
Our legislature has recently revised our standard of review for agency decisions: “Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, may not be set aside unless clearly erroneous[.]” SDCL 15-6-52(a). Since the parties stipulated to the facts before the DOL, the issues presented to the circuit court were solely legal issues to be reviewed de novo.
2001 SD 94, ¶4, 631 NW2d 202, 204 (additional citations omitted). However, Justice Konenkamp noted in his concurring opinion, “[t]he majority opinion reaches the correct conclusion, and I concur with it. The parties agreed to de novo appellate review. But whether we apply the standard of review from SDCL 15-6-52(a) to agency fact findings on disputed or undisputed facts must be left for another day.” Id. at ¶16, 631 NW2d at 206 (Konenkamp, J., concurring).
[¶14.] That day has come.
[¶15.] We reject Brown’s argument that we are to ignore the Department’s findings and review the trial court’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. SDCL 15-6-52(a) does not apply to a trial court’s review of agency decisions for two reasons.
[¶16.] First, the beginning sentence of 15-6-52(a) provides: “In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall” make findings of fact. The first sentence describes a court trial where evidence is heard, not an administrative appeal in trial court where evidence is not heard. Therefore, SDCL 15-6-52(a) does not relate to trial court appellate review. Instead, SDCL 1-26-37 requires the same deference afforded findings of fact in “other appeals from the [trial] court.”
[¶17.] Second, when there are no witnesses in a trial court appellate review of an agency decision, the trial court is reviewing the cold record, not determining the credibility of live witnesses. When it comes to an appeal, based on documents, depositions and transcripts, we can read the cold record just as well as the trial court. Justice Morgan wrote the following in Zeig v. South Dakota Dept. of Labor:
We next examine the issue of whether the decision by the appeal referee was clearly erroneous. SDCL 1-26-36. The trial court, in its memorandum opinion, found that “[g]iving the agency findings great weight, the appeals referee’s decision, which was affirmed by the Secretary of the Department of Labor, was not clearly erroneous in light of the entire evidence in the record.” We are not bound by the trial court’s reading of the record. We can read it for ourselves.
337 NW2d 435, 439-40 (SD 1983) (emphasis added). The standard of review in an appeal to the Supreme Court from a trial court’s appellate review of an administrative decision is de novo: unaided by any presumption that the trial court is correct. Kurtz, 1998 SD 37 at ¶10, 576 NW2d at 882 (citing Zoss v. United Bldg. Centers, Inc., 1997 SD 93 at ¶6, 566 NW2d 840, 843).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION[¶18.] 1. Whether Brown’s work injury was “a major contributing
cause” of her disability.
[¶19.] Before Brown can collect any benefits under South Dakota’s workers’ compensation statutes, she must establish a causal connection between her injury and her employment. Johnson v. Albertson’s, 2000 SD 47, ¶22, 610 NW2d 449, 453. Brown must prove her employment was “a major contributing factor” to her injury, pursuant to SDCL 62-1-1(7). Id. at ¶22, 610 NW2d at 454. This statute defines “injury” as one that arises:
[¶24.] Both Dr. Lawlor and Dr. Anderson applied the wrong standard. Dr. Lawlor testified that Brown’s work injury on May 8, 1997, was “the major contributing cause” of her disability. Despite being asked whether Brown’s injury on the job was “a major contributing cause,” Dr. Anderson testified that Brown’s injury on the job on May 8, 1997, was “not . . . the major contributing factor” in Brown’s disability. Both doctors used a standard that was too high. All Brown had to prove was that her injury was “a major contributing factor.”
[¶34.] The School finally argues that its failure to timely file a notice of review should be excused because it substantially complied with 1-26-36.1. We disagree. Full compliance is required. Schreifels v. Kottke Trucking, 2001 SD 90, ¶10, 631 NW2d 186, 189 (citing Matter of Groseth Intern., Inc., 442 NW2d 229 (SD 1989)) . The School, therefore, has shown no basis for overturning the trial court’s refusal to relieve the School from its default.
[¶37.] ZINTER, Justice, not having been a member of the Court at the time this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate[1] . The proper review of fact determinations by an administrative agency is clearly erroneous, not substantial evidence. Sopko v. C & R Transf. Co., 1998 SD 8, ¶6, 575 NW2d 225, 228.
[2] . Although Brown testified at the Department’s hearing, neither the Department nor the trial court entered findings as to Brown’s credibility.
[3] . This distinction is similar to negligence cases, where the plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant’s negligence was “the proximate cause” of the injury but that it was “a proximate cause.” See Schmeling v. Jorgensen, 77 SD 8, 19, 84 NW2d 558, 564 (1957)(stating, “[a]nd, of course, negligence, to render a person liable, need not be the sole cause of injury, but it is sufficient that his negligence concurring with one or more efficient negligent acts of third persons, is a proximate cause of the injury.” (citing Lapp v. J. Lauesen & Co., 67 SD 411, 293 NW 536; Rowan v. Becker, 73 SD 273, 41 NW2d 836; and Hjermstad v. Petroleum Carriers, 74 SD 406, 53 NW2d 839 ). See also Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Henry Carlson Co., 83 SD 664, 669, 165 NW2d 346, 349 (1969) (stating, “it is a fundamental rule that negligence to be actionable must be a proximate cause of the damage.”).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.