State News : South Dakota

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.


NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.  


Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.


Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.


South Dakota

BOYCE LAW FIRM, LLP

  605-334-0618

The South Dakota Department of Labor recently issued another decision accepting the causation testimony of a Claimant’s treating provider over the testimony of an Employer’s and Insurer’s experts. In Wager v. Buck’s Electric, Inc. (HF No. 96, 2023/24), Claimant, apprentice electrician Zachary Wager, developed a hernia shortly after engaging in heavy lifting activities at work on June 15, 2021. Employer and Insurer initially accepted the hernia as compensable and paid for Claimant’s care related to the hernia. Claimant later developed nerve pain related to his treatment for the hernia. Claimant underwent an IME, in which the IME doctor opined that Claimant’s hernia had, in fact, been caused by a congenital condition rather than the work injury.  However, Claimant later obtained an opinion from his treating provider that the work injury was a major contributing cause of the hernia.

The Department accepted the opinion of Claimant’s treating doctor over the opinion of Employer’s and Insurer’s IME doctor and held Claimant had met his burden to show that the work injury was a major contributing cause of his hernia and nerve pain. This case again shows the Department siding with a treating physician on causality over an IME doctor or other retained expert. In ruling in Claimant’s favor, the Department emphasized that a work injury need only be “a major contributing cause,” not the sole cause of a claimant’s current condition. Therefore, evidence of the Claimant’s preexisting congenital issues did not preclude a finding that the work injury was a major contributing cause of the Claimant’s current condition.