Jody Pham v. Smithfield Foods, Sioux Falls

Sioux Falls, South Dakota workers' compensation lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a premises liability claim.



Jody Pham injured her neck and right shoulder while working at Smithfield Foods, a self-insured employer. Smithfield accepted the injury as a compensable workers' compensation claim and, without a hearing or settlement agreement, continued to pay workers' compensation benefits for over two years. However, in 2018, Smithfield stopped paying medical benefits because it believed Pham's employment was no longer a major contributing cause of her need for additional treatment. Pham filed a petition for hearing with the Department of Labor and Regulation (the Department), and an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that Pham failed to meet her burden to establish causation. Pham appealed to the circuit court which reversed the ALJ's decision, reasoning that by initially accepting Pham's claims as a compensable injury, the burden shifted to Smithfield to show a change in circumstances to justify suspending benefits.



* * *



Legal issue Did the burden shift to the employer to prove that the continuation of workers' compensation benefits was not required once it had accepted and paid claims initially?

Headnote



WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW. BURDEN OF PROOF IN TERMINATING BENEFITS. The court addressed whether the employer, after initially accepting an injury as compensable and voluntarily paying benefits, has the burden to demonstrate a change in circumstances to justify suspending those benefits. The court concluded that the employer does not bear this burden under South Dakota law.



ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The court evaluated the appropriate standard of review for decisions made by an administrative law judge regarding factual findings in workers' compensation cases. The court reaffirmed that factual findings should be reviewed for clear error, deferring to the ALJ's determination if it is supported by evidence.



EVIDENCE. WEIGHT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. In a workers' compensation dispute involving conflicting expert opinions, the court considered whether greater weight should be given to the testimony of a treating physician over a non-treating expert. The decision highlighted that no per se hierarchy exists, and the determination rests on which expert opinion is more persuasive and well-supported.



Key Phrases Workers' compensation benefits. Major contributing cause. Permanent partial impairment. Expert medical testimony. Burden of proof.

Reversed