#24138-a-JKM
2007 SD 36
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
THOMAS VANSTEENWYK, Claimant and Appellee,
v.
BAUMGARTNER TREES AND
LANDSCAPING, Employer and Appellant,
and
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Insurer and Appellant.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE KATHLEEN K. CALDWELL
Judge
* * * *
RONALD A. PARSONS, JR.
A. RUSSELL JANKLOW of
Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner,
Marlow and Janklow Attorneys for claimant
Sioux Falls, South Dakota and appellee.
ERIC C. BLOMFELT
JEREMY D. NAUMAN of
Eric C. Blomfelt & Associates, P.C. Attorneys for employer,
Windsor, Colorado insurer and appellants.
* * * *
ARGUED ON JANUARY 9, 2007
OPINION FILED 04/11/07
#24138
MEIERHENRY, Justice
[¶1.] Thomas VanSteenwyk (VanSteenwyk) sought workers’ compensation
benefits for an injury he received while working for Baumgartner Trees and
Landscaping. VanSteenwyk, an admitted regular marijuana user, had smoked
marijuana the evening before the day of his workplace injury. Baumgartner and its
insurer, Farmers Insurance Group (collectively referred to as Baumgartner),
opposed the granting of benefits and argued that VanSteenwyk’s off-duty illegal
drug use constituted willful misconduct pursuant to SDCL § 62-4-37, which would
bar him from receiving workers’ compensation benefits. The parties agreed to
bifurcate the issues and address the issue of willful misconduct first. Based on the
evidence, the South Dakota Department of Labor (Department) concluded that
Baumgartner had not met its burden of proving that VanSteenwyk’s willful
misconduct proximately caused his injury. Baumgartner appealed the
Department’s ruling to circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the Department’s
ruling. We affirm the Department and circuit court.
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
[¶2.] VanSteenwyk began working for Baumgartner as a landscaper and
laborer one year prior to his injury on April 30, 2004. Part of VanSteenwyk’s job
included operating a skid loader. He was injured while attaching a bucket to the
front of the skid loader. Attaching the bucket required a set of manual procedures
and safety precautions. Baumgartner claims that VanSteenwyk’s off-duty
marijuana use impaired his ability to perform the procedures or heed the safety
precautions.
-1-
#24138
[¶3.] VanSteenwyk admitted that he used marijuana on a daily basis for the
past fifteen to twenty years. Although VanSteenwyk never smoked marijuana
before or during work hours, he routinely smoked marijuana after he completed
work and before going to bed. Thus, the day before the injury following his usual
routine, VanSteenwyk smoked marijuana. After completing a full work-day,
VanSteenwyk and his supervisor, Troy Daggett (Daggett), went to Daggett’s house
to smoke marijuana and relax, just as they had done for the past year. After
spending 30 to 60 minutes at Daggett’s house, VanSteenwyk returned to his home
in Canistota, South Dakota, where he took a shower, had dinner with his family,
watched television and put his children to bed. Prior to going to bed between
midnight and 12:30 A.M., he once again smoked marijuana. VanSteenwyk stated
that he smoked a total of three to five joints of marijuana that evening.
[¶4.] The next day, VanSteenwyk picked up Daggett for work at 8:00 A.M.
They went to Baumgartner’s shop and then proceeded to their worksite. Brian
Baumgartner, company owner, joined them at the worksite around 9:00 A.M. and
worked with them most of the morning. VanSteenwyk was working with a skid
loader as he often did as part of his duties. Around 11:30 A.M., Daggett asked
VanSteenwyk to remove the fork from the skid loader and attach the bucket so they
could clean-up the worksite. Although Daggett believed two people should engage
in this task, Baumgartner had given Daggett orders that only one person should be
involved in changing the bucket in order to save man-hours.
[¶5.] The skid loader came equipped with various attachments for the
hydraulic arm or boom, including a fork for lifting and a metal bucket for digging,
-2-
#24138
loading and moving materials. The skid loader had various safety mechanisms to
prevent injury while changing attachments. First, there were locking pins under
the hydraulic arm that prevented it from being lowered beyond the height of the
pin. However, Baumgartner had not instructed his employees to use the locking
pins and normally did not use them himself. Second, the seat on the skid loader
had a pressure switch, which turned off the hydraulics when there was no pressure
on the seat. Third, the skid loader was equipped with a seatbelt safety system. The
safety system would not let the loader start unless the seatbelt was securely
buckled. If the seatbelt became unbuckled, the hydraulics would shut down.
Baumgartner, however, had disengaged the seatbelt safety system and had
installed a manual toggle switch in its place. Consequently when the pressure
switch was triggered because of no pressure on the seat and the hydraulics shut off,
the operator needed to sit on or apply pressure to the seat and reset the toggle
switch in order to reengage the hydraulics.
[¶6.] Proceeding with his task of removing the fork and attaching the
bucket, VanSteenwyk drove the skid loader to the bucket. When VanSteenwyk slid
the bucket onto the skid loader’s hydraulic arm, the locking mechanism would not
engage. On this particular skid loader, attaching the bucket could be difficult
because the mechanism to which the bucket attached had previously been cracked
and welded. The welding left the bucket slightly warped and off-center, making it
difficult to slide the bucket onto the hydraulic arm and to lock it into place.
Consequently, Baumgartner had instructed VanSteenwyk and the other employees
to get off the seat and use their right legs to kick the front right locking lever to
-3-
#24138
engage the locking mechanism. Whether VanSteenwyk got off the seat to kick the
locking lever was disputed. However, it was undisputed that while his right leg was
extended, his left foot accidentally pushed the pedal on the floor of the skid loader. 1
By pushing this pedal, VanSteenwyk inadvertently lowered the hydraulic arm,
which caused his leg to become pinned between the lip of the cab and the crosspiece
of the arm. VanSteenwyk was able to disengage the hydraulics before any bones
were broken but not before suffering a serious crush injury 2 that required
hospitalization. A urinalysis at the hospital revealed marijuana in VanSteenwyk’s
system.
[¶7.] Baumgartner contends that VanSteenwyk was impaired by the
marijuana and that the impairment caused his injury. At the hearing before the
Department, Baumgartner presented expert testimony to support his claim. Dr.
Michael Evans, a board certified toxicologist, testified that based on the high level
of THC detected in VanSteenwyk’s urinalysis, he was significantly impaired at the
time of the accident although a casual observer would not notice any signs of
1. VanSteenwyk’s size 13 shoe and the fact that the pedal took up a large area
of the floor led the experts to believe that his left foot inadvertently hit the
pedal.
2. A crush injury is described as follows:
A crush injury occurs when a body part is subjected to a high degree of
force or pressure, usually after being squeezed between two heavy or
immobile objects. Damage related to crush injury includes: laceration
(open wound), fracture, bleeding, bruising, compartment syndrome,
and others.
Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, U.S. National Library of Medicine,
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000024.htm.
-4-
#24138
impairment. However, Dr. Evans indicated that he could not give an opinion as to
whether VanSteenwyk’s impairment caused the accident.
[¶8.] VanSteenwyk presented deposition testimony of Dr. John Vasiliades,
an expert in clinical and forensic toxicology. Dr. Vasiliades disagreed with Dr.
Evans’ opinion that VanSteenwyk was impaired at the time of the accident. Dr.
Vasiliades testified that he “would not expect any impairment from the effects of the
drug 12 hours” after ingestion. He also testified that it was unlikely that
VanSteenwyk suffered any impairment on the day of the accident because of the
observations of VanSteenwyk’s co-workers. All of VanSteenwyk’s co-workers
testified that on the morning of the accident VanSteenwyk was alert, coordinated,
working hard, and performing a routine task he had performed many times.
[¶9.] The Department ruled that VanSteenwyk was not barred from
receiving workers’ compensation benefits because of his off-duty marijuana use.
Baumgartner appeals and raises one issue:
ISSUE
Whether the Department of Labor and the circuit court erred in
finding that VanSteenwyk’s illegal drug use was not a substantial
factor in causing his injuries.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶10.] In workers’ compensation cases our standard of review is established
by SDCL 1-26-36. “Under SDCL 1-26-36, the applicable standard of review ‘will
vary depending on whether the issue is one of fact or one of law.’” Orth v. Stoebner
& Permann. Const., Inc., 2006 SD 99, ¶27, 724 NW2d 586, 592 (quoting Tischler v.
United Parcel Service, 1996 SD 98, ¶23, 552 NW2d 597, 602). “When the issue is a
-5-
#24138
question of fact, then the actions of the agency are judged by the clearly erroneous
standard; and when the issue is a question of law, then the actions of the agency are
fully reviewable [ i.e., de novo].” Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
“Mixed questions of fact and law are fully reviewable.” Id. (quoting Brown v.
Douglas Sch. Dist., 2002 SD 92, ¶9, 650 NW2d 264, 268).
[¶11.] The applicable standard of review also varies depending on whether
the Department was presented with live testimony or documentary evidence. When
findings of fact are made based on live testimony, the clearly erroneous standard
applies. Id. ¶28. “Deference and great weight are given to the hearing examiner on
fact questions. ‘When factual determinations are made on the basis of documentary
evidence, however, we review the matter de novo, unhampered by the clearly
erroneous rule.’” Id. (quoting Brown, 2002 SD 92, ¶9, 650 NW2d at 268).
ANALYSIS
[¶12.] Baumgartner argues that the Department erred when it failed to find
that VanSteenwyk’s willful misconduct in the form of off-duty illegal drug use was a
substantial factor in causing the accident. SDCL 62-4-37 provides that injuries
caused by willful misconduct by illegal use of Schedule I or Schedule II drugs are
not compensable:
No compensation shall be allowed for any injury or death due to
the employee’s willful misconduct, including intentional self-
inflicted injury, intoxication, illegal use of any schedule I or
schedule II drug, or willful failure or refusal to use a safety
appliance furnished by the employer, or to perform a duty
required by statute. The burden of proof under this section shall
be on the defendant employer.
-6-
#24138
Under the statute, the employer has the burden of proving by a preponderance of
the evidence that the employee engaged in willful misconduct and that the
employee’s injuries were “due to the employee’s willful misconduct.” Goebel v.
Warner Transportation, 2000 SD 79, ¶¶12-13, 612 NW2d 18, 22 (quoting SDCL 62-
4-37); see also Holscher v. Valley Queen Cheese Factory, 2006 SD 35, ¶55, 713
NW2d 555, 570. “The words ‘due to’ in SDCL 67-4-37 refer to proximate cause.”
Goebel, 2000 SD 79, ¶13, 612 NW2d at 22. Consequently, an employee can be
denied compensation under SDCL 62-4-37 if the employer can show by a
preponderance of the evidence “that the employee’s ‘willful misconduct’ was a
proximate cause of the claimed injury.” Holscher, 2006 SD 35, ¶55, 713 NW2d at
570. “An employee’s willful misconduct will be the proximate cause of an injury
when it ‘is a cause that produces [the injury] in a natural and probable sequence
and without which the [injury] would not have occurred.’” Id. ¶56 (quoting Estate of
Gaspar v. Vogt, Brown & Merry, 2003 SD 126, ¶6, 670 NW2d 918, 921). The
employer is not required to show that the employee’s misconduct was the only
cause, nor the last or nearest cause of the injury because an injury may have had
several contributing or concurring causes, including willful misconduct. Id. Rather,
under SDCL 62-4-37, an injury will be barred only when the employee’s willful
misconduct was a substantial factor in causing the injury. Id.
[¶13.] The Department assumed, without making any specific findings, that
VanSteenwyk’s marijuana use constituted willful misconduct. Therefore, the only
issue before us is whether the Department erred when it concluded that
-7-
#24138
Baumgartner failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that VanSteenwyk’s
injury was due to his use of marijuana the night before the accident.
1. Proximate Cause Testimony
[¶14.] Baumgartner argues that he met his burden of proof through the
expert testimony he offered at the administrative hearing and cites as error several
findings of fact by the Department. Because Baumgartner’s experts testified live at
the administrative hearing, the clearly erroneous standard is applicable.
Baumgartner had the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
VanSteenwyk’s willful misconduct proximately caused the accident, that is,
Baumgartner had the burden of proving that VanSteenwyk’s off-duty use of
marijuana was a substantial factor in causing his injury. Holscher, 2006 SD 35,
¶55, 713 NW2d at 570. Baumgartner argues that the testimony of his experts, Dr.
Evans and Dr. Alcorn, provided “abundant evidence – largely ignored by the
Department – from which the Department might have properly inferred, deduced,
or otherwise concluded that VanSteenwyk’s illegal drug use was a substantial factor
in causing his injury.”
[¶15.] Baumgartner argues that the Department placed unwarranted
reliance on the absence of explicit testimony from Dr. Evans that VanSteenwyk’s
marijuana use was a proximate cause of his accident. Dr. Evans offered the
following observation in a written report prepared for trial: “[T]he impairment
effects produced by [VanSteenwyk’s] use of Marijuana is a significant causative
factor in workplace accidents such as Mr. Thomas E. VanSteenwyk[’s] accident on
April 30, 2004.” However, at the hearing, when Dr. Evans was specifically asked
-8-
#24138
whether VanSteenwyk’s off-duty marijuana use played a role in the accident, he
declined to offer an opinion, stating, “As a scientist, I would never claim that – first
of all, as an accident reconstruction – that the marijuana use caused the accident.
I’m not an accident reconstructionist, absolutely not. . . . No, I cannot tell you that
the marijuana caused the accident.” Based on this testimony, the Department
made the following finding of fact:
Dr. Evans candidly admitted that he could not say, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that Claimant’s marijuana use
on April 29th was a proximate cause of his workplace injury on
April 30th. He testified that he was “absolutely not” able to
opine on the causation of the accident.
Baumgartner argues that the Department misinterpreted Dr. Evan’s answer.
Baumgartner contends that Dr. Evan’s response did not address the legal issue of
causation but rather indicated that he had solely assessed causation with the
accuracy of scientific analysis that would be necessary to absolutely prove
causation. If there was confusion, there was no attempt to clarify or explain Dr.
Evans’ proffered answer regarding the causation issue on re-direct. 3 Regardless,
the Department was in the best position to interpret Dr. Evans’ testimony and we
3. Baumgartner argues that Dr. Evans could not testify as to whether
VanSteenwyk’s use was the proximate cause of the injury because it is a legal
term and he testified from a scientific perspective. However, in Goebel v.
Warner Transp., Dr. Evans testified that a truck-driver’s on-duty snorting of
methamphetamine and smoking of marijuana was a substantial factor in his
injuries when he subsequently passed out behind the wheel and drove off the
road. 2000 SD 79, ¶7, 612 NW2d at 20-21. The Court noted that Dr. Evans
testified “that to a reasonable degree of scientific probability, Goebel’s use of
methamphetamine and marijuana impaired his driving ability, and that the
impairment was a substantial factor in his accident.” Id. The record in this
case is void of similar testimony from Dr. Evans.
-9-
#24138
are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Thus,
we cannot say that the Department’s finding was clearly erroneous.
[¶16.] Additionally, Baumgartner argues that Dr. Evans was not required to
testify specifically that VanSteenwyk’s drug use was a proximate cause of the
accident. Baumgartner argues that in Driscoll v. Great Plains Marketing Co., this
Court held that proximate cause was established on the basis of testimony
comparable in kind to that presented by Dr. Evans. 322 NW2d 478, 479 (SD 1982).
The facts in Driscoll are distinguishable. In Driscoll, the Department denied the
employee workers’ compensation benefits because he drank five to six beers
immediately before he was injured in a car accident on his way home from work. Id.
at 478. The deputy sheriff, who investigated the accident, testified that claimant
was impaired at the time of the accident and that claimant was one hundred times
more likely to be involved in an accident than if he had nothing to drink. Id. at 479.
This Court concluded that the Department’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Id. at 480.
[¶17.] Dr. Evans testified about the general effects of marijuana use and
identified two categories of effects. The first is the “euphoric period” which may last
three to five hours from when the user begins to smoke. The second category is the
“impairment effects” period. Dr. Evans testified that one study showed the
“impairment effects” period can last anywhere from 24 to 48 hours after ingesting
the drug. Dr. Evans noted that a person may suffer from the following impairments
when he is a chronic user of marijuana: diminishment of sequential thinking
abilities, dullness in thought processing and activity, hand eye coordination,
-10-
#24138
sensory skills, slowing cognitive processing and reaction time during complex tasks.
Based on VanSteenwyk’s use of marijuana on the night prior to the accident and the
large amount of THC detected in his urinalysis, Dr. Evans concluded that
VanSteenwyk was impaired by the marijuana at the time of the accident. However,
as previously noted, Dr. Evans testified that he could not conclude that
VanSteenwyk’s marijuana use or impairment caused the accident. Nevertheless,
Baumgartner emphasizes the following statement from Dr. Evans as sufficient to
show proximate cause: “[T]he impairment effects produced by [VanSteenwyk’s] use
of Marijuana is a significant causative factor in workplace accidents such as Mr.
Thomas E. VanSteenwyk[’s] accident on April 30, 2004.” However, there was
conflicting testimony as to whether VanSteenwyk was impaired at the time of the
accident and the administrative law judge (ALJ) noted that Baumgartner’s experts
did not establish that “Claimant’s impairment, if any, was a proximate cause of the
accident.”
[¶18.] Dr. Alcorn, an expert in accident reconstruction, also testified on behalf
of Baumgartner. Dr. Alcorn’s written report indicated that VanSteenwyk’s
“accident was caused by the operator’s failure to follow accepted safety procedures
and by not locking the boom in the up position before attempting to lock the bucket
to the mounting plate.” However, at the hearing Baumgartner testified that he had
not instructed his employees to use the locking pins when changing the attachments
on the skid loader. Dr. Alcorn subsequently testified that he was “surprised” and
“shocked” to learn that the locking pins were not being used by Baumgartner or the
-11-
#24138
other employees noting that the locking pins could have prevented VanSteenwyk’s
accident.
[¶19.] Dr. Alcorn also offered the following opinion in a written report
prepared for trial: “The operator exercised poor judgment in his operation of the
machine. He also lacked coordination in the use of his legs and feet in addition to
his slow response time once he realized he had made an error.” However, at the
hearing, when Dr. Alcorn was asked whether the accident would have been
prevented if VanSteenwyk would have reacted quicker, Dr. Alcorn responded, “You
know, it’s really hard for me to say if he could have reacted quicker. It’s just – I
don’t think I can say.”
[¶20.] Neither Dr. Alcorn nor Dr. Evans could offer any opinion as to what
role, if any, VanSteenwyk’s marijuana use played in the accident. We agree that
Baumgartner was not required to present an expert’s opinion that the claimant’s
willful misconduct proximately caused the injury in order to prevail. The ultimate
decision on proximate cause is made by the finder of fact based on all the evidence,
including expert and eye-witness testimony. However, the burden of proof lies with
the employer to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee’s willful
misconduct proximately caused the injury. SDCL 62-4-37. The determination of
proximate cause was within the province of the factfinder, here the ALJ. The ALJ
concluded that neither Dr. Evans nor Dr. Alcorn’s testimony met Baumgartner’s
burden of proof. Except for their testimony, there was no other evidence that
VanSteenwyk was impaired the day of the injury. We give great deference and
weight to the Department’s findings under the clearly erroneous standard. Orth,
-12-
#24138
2006 SD 99, ¶28, 724 NW2d at 592. Based on all the evidence, we cannot say that
the Department’s findings on proximate cause are clearly erroneous. Thus,
Baumgartner’s arguments regarding proximate cause fail. 4
2. Credibility of Experts
[¶21.] Baumgartner cites as error that the Department, as factfinder, failed
to examine Dr. Evans’ credibility or demeanor or provide any observations about, or
evaluation of, his testimony. Baumgartner also contends that the Department
erred when it failed to examine the credibility of Dr. Vasiliades pointing to Dr.
Evans’ opinion of Dr. Vasiliades that he was not a “competent, qualified
toxicologist.” We have consistently deferred to the ALJ when evaluating live
testimony because of the opportunity to view the witnesses and be in the best
position to determine the “credibility of the witnesses, the import to be accorded
their testimony, and the weight of the evidence.” Schaefer ex rel. S.S. v. Liechti,
2006 SD 19, ¶8, 711 NW2d 257, 260 (quoting Baun v. Estate of Kramlich, 2003 SD
89, ¶21, 667 NW2d 672, 677). Likewise, we have not required the ALJ to always
make specific findings of fact regarding a witness’ credibility or demeanor.
Baumgartner cites no authority supporting this requirement. The failure to cite
supporting authority waives the issue. Burch v. Bricker, 2006 SD 101, ¶20, 724
NW2d 604, 610. Even if the issue was not waived, the Department’s decision was
4. Baumgartner argues that the Department erred in determining that
VanSteenwyk was operating the skid loader in the “exact fashion” that he
had been instructed by Baumgartner. Baumgartner contends that
VanSteenwyk was sitting while he extended his leg to kick the locking lever
although Baumgartner had instructed him to stand. Nevertheless, this fact
is not relevant to the ultimate issue in this case - whether VanSteenwyk’s
injury was due to his marijuana use.
-13-
#24138
based on Baumgartner’s failure to meet his burden of proof and not on the
credibility of the expert witnesses.
3. Incorrect Legal Standard
[¶22.] Baumgartner also argues that the Department applied an incorrect
legal standard. Baumgartner contends that the following test articulated by the
Department in its memorandum decision was incorrect: “What Employer must
demonstrate to prevail with its misconduct defense is that Claimant’s intoxication
was the proximate cause of the operator error that caused the injury.” (Emphasis
added). Baumgartner points out that the appropriate legal standard is that the
employer must establish that the misconduct was “a” proximate cause of the
operator error that caused the injury. We agree that the proper legal standard is
that the employer must show that the misconduct was a proximate cause of the
injury. Holscher, 2006 SD 35, ¶55, 713 NW2d at 570.
[¶23.] Nevertheless, the record indicates that the Department used the
correct standard. We find only one instance in the record where the Department
used the phrase “the proximate cause.” The remainder of the written decision, as
well as the findings of fact and conclusions of law, refers to “a” proximate cause.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the Department’s decision rested on a
determination that VanSteenwyk’s marijuana use was “the” proximate cause of the
accident. Specifically, the ALJ made the following conclusion of law: “Claimant’s
off-duty marijuana use was not a substantial factor or a proximate cause of his
workplace injury.” (Emphasis added). Accordingly, Baumgartner’s argument is
without merit.
-14-
#24138
[¶24.] We affirm the Department’s determination that Baumgartner failed to
show by a preponderance of the evidence that VanSteenwyk’s injury was “due to”
his willful misconduct.
[¶25.] Affirmed.
[¶26.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, KONENKAMP, and
ZINTER, Justices, concur.
-15-