last injurious exposure rule in South Dakota

2009Grossenburg and Son, 89 S.D. 308 , 232 N.W.2d 463, 464-65 (1975) (quoting 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 95.00)); see also SDCL 62-1-18. [¶ 20.] Applying the last injurious exposure rule, the Department concluded that Baier’s need for bilateral hip surgery was unrelated to his 1999 back injury, and that, based on the medical testimony, Baier did not suffer a specific injury to his hips, but rather suffered a degenerative condition that developed gradually.

2009Grossenburg and Son, 89 S.D. 308 , 232 N.W.2d 463, 464-65 (1975) (quoting 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 95.00)); see also SDCL 62-1-18. [¶ 20.] Applying the last injurious exposure rule, the Department concluded that Baier’s need for bilateral hip surgery was unrelated to his 1999 back injury, and that, based on the medical testimony, Baier did not suffer a specific injury to his hips, but rather suffered a degenerative condition that developed gradually.

2001The evidence, when viewed most favorably to Truck and CNA, fails to show that Kubal sustained a second injury after October 1990 or that her continuing employment activities independently contributed to her condition. [¶ 27. ] Whether the trial court erred in determining that Dodson was liable for Kubal's thumb injuries? [¶ 28. ] In determining successive carrier responsibility in recurrence/aggravation disputes, the "burden of proving the causative effect of the second event is upon the initial carrier seeking to shift responsibility for the consequences of the original injury." Standard Di

2001The evidence, when viewed most favorably to Truck and CNA, fails to show that Kubal sustained a second injury after October 1990 or that her continuing employment activities independently contributed to her condition. [¶ 27.] Whether the trial court erred in determining that Dodson was liable for Kubal’s thumb injuries? [¶ 28.] In determining successive carrier responsibility in recurrence/aggravation disputes, the “burden of proving the causative effect of the second event is upon the initial carrier seeking to shift responsibility for the consequences of the original injury.” Standard Distri

2005See Titus v. Sioux Valley Hosp., 2003 SD 22, ¶ 13 , 658 N.W.2d 388, 390-91 . [¶ 44.] Our prior cases considering an aggravation, however, did not involve a situation where the injured employee had already been drawing disability compensation at the time of the subsequent injury.

2005See Titus v. Sioux Valley Hosp., 2003 SD 22, ¶ 13 , 658 N.W.2d 388, 390-91 . [¶ 44.] Our prior cases considering an aggravation, however, did not involve a situation where the injured employee had already been drawing disability compensation at the time of the subsequent injury.