Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant suffered work-related injuries in 2000 and received workers' compensation benefits until 2004. Appellant filed another first report of injury in 2009 based on the same injuries. Employer denied benefits. Appellant filed a petition for rehearing. The Department of Labor & Regulation, Division of Labor & Management found that S.D. Codified Laws 62-7-35.1 barred Appellant's second claim for workers' compensation benefits because more than three years had passed between the date of the last payment of benefits and the date Appellant filed a written petition for a hearing. The circuit court affirmed. Appellant appealed, arguing section 62-7-35.1 should not apply to this case because his injuries were from cumulative trauma. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the cumulative trauma doctrine did not change section 62-7-35.1's application to this case because the cumulative trauma doctrine applies to the date of injury, which is irrelevant to section 62-7-35.1. View "Schuelke v. Belle Fourche Irrigation Dist." on Justia Law

Appellant was injured in 2008 while working for Employer. In 2010, Appellant received an injury she believed was a "flare-up" from the earlier injury. Appellant subsequently petitioned the Department of Labor for benefits. Because Appellant's original petition did not assert that the 2010 incident caused a recurrence of her 2008 injury, Appellant amended her petition making that assertion. Employer argued that Appellant's claim was time barred under her amended petition. Appellant respondent that the claims in her amended petition related back to her original petition, which was filed before the expiration of the statute of limitations. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled that Appellant's claims in her amended petition did not relate back to her original petition and granted summary judgment to Employer. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with direction that the ALJ allow Appellant's amended petition to relate back to the date of her original petition, holding that to not allow Appellant to proceed on a claim that all parties agreed was a recurrence of her 2008 compensable work-related injury because Appellant failed to posture her request for relief in her original petition as a recurrence contravened the spirit of the state's worker's compensation laws.View "Waterman v. Morningside Manor" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation (Department) issued Appellant a jeopardy assessment alleging unpaid sales tax. On appeal, a hearing examiner found Appellant liable for a jeopardy assessment, and the Secretary of Revenue adopted the decision. The circuit court dismissed Appellant's appeal, holding that Appellant's failure to pay the amounts affirmed by the Secretary or to file a bond before commencing its appeal resulted in the failure to preserve jurisdiction in the court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's failure to post its bond within the statutory period was fatal to its appeal; (2) Appellant failed to substantially comply with the relevant statute; and (3) the time for Appellant to post its bond could not be equitably tolled.View "AEG Processing Ctr. No. 58, Inc. v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Regulation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the owner of fourteen "recreational park trailers" that were used as cabins for lodging in a campground Plaintiff operated. Pennington County assessed the cabins as real property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The County Board of Equalization affirmed the assessment. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, concluding that the cabins were not taxable under S.D. Codified Laws 10-4-2. The County appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when considered together, the facts of this case established that Plaintiff's cabins were "improvements to land" within the meaning of section 10-4-2(2). View "Rushmore Shadows, LLC v. Pennington County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

The South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation, Unemployment Insurance Division disqualified Plaintiff from unemployment insurance benefits based on Plaintiff's alleged failure, without good cause, to accept work she was capable of performing. After Plaintiff missed a telephonic hearing on her appeal, an ALJ entered an order of dismissal and denied Plaintiff's request to reopen for failure to show good cause. The circuit court affirmed, concluding that the Department did not err in refusing to reopen Plaintiff's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding that Plaintiff did not provide evidence of untimely receipt of her notice of the hearing to carry her burden to show good cause, and therefore, Plaintiff received sufficient due process.View "Eiler v. Dep't of Labor & Regulation" on Justia Law