Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant injured his right shoulder while working for Employer. Due to his injuries and Employer’s lack of workers’ compensation coverage, Appellant sued to recover for his disability, arguing that Employer was in violation of South Dakota’s workers’ compensation law by failing to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Redstone, concluding that Redstone was exempt from the requirement to purchase workers’ compensation insurance under S.D. Codified Laws 62-3-15, which exempts “farm or agricultural laborers” from coverage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable test for determining an employee’s status as an agricultural laborer under section 62-3-15 is examining the entire nature of the employee’s work, which involves looking at the nature of the employer’s business; and (2) in this case, Appellant’s employment was agricultural in nature and performed for an exclusively agricultural employer, and therefore, Appellant was an agricultural laborer under the code and thus exempt from workers’ compensation coverage. View "Hofer v. Redstone Feeders, LLC" on Justia Law

Wharf Resources, Inc., a mining company, terminated Lisa Davis for “disruptive behavior in the workplace.” Several months later, Davis filed a gender discrimination claim and a retaliatory discharge claim with the South Dakota Department of Labor, Division of Human Rights (Department). The Department concluded that there was no probable cause for Davis’s claims. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) affirming the Department’s finding of no probable cause; (2) determining that Davis was terminated for permissible factors; and (3) affirming the findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the Department. View "Davis v. Wharf Res. (USA), Inc." on Justia Law

Dakota Trailer Manufacturing, which makes radiator components for an unrelated company, performs its component work in one of Dakota Trailer’s locations that was originally classified as a “machine shop” for workers compensation insurance rating purposes. After an inspection, the National Council on Compensation Insurance changed the location’s classification to “welding or cutting.” Both the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board and the South Dakota Department of Labor affirmed the new classification. The circuit court reversed and reinstated the machine shop code. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court properly found that Dakota Trailer’s activities fit within the machine shop code. View "Dakota Trailer Mfg. v. United Fire & Cas. Co." on Justia Law

Employee was injured when he ran from a co-worker on the job site after tricking that co-worker. Employee sought workers’ compensation benefits. Employer and Insurer denied workers’ compensation benefits, asserting that Employee’s injury did not “arise out of” or “in the course of” his employment because Employer specifically prohibited horseplay by its employees. Employee petitioned for a hearing. The Department of Labor concluded that Employee’s injury arose “out of” his employment because, but for his work with Employer” he would not have been at the job site where he was injured, but that the injury did not occur “in the course of” the employment. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for an award of benefits, holding that the Department (1) correctly concluded that Employee’s injury arose “out of” the employment; and (2) erred when it did not consider the effect of the mandatory lull in Employee’s work when it determined that the injury did not occur “in the course of” his employment. Because Employee’s act of horseplay was not a substantial deviation from his employment, it occurred “in the course of the employment.” View "Petrik v. JJ Concrete, Inc." on Justia Law

Patricia Wheeler was employed by Cinna Bakers, Westside Casino, and Get ’N’ Go and held the three separate jobs concurrently. Wheeler was injured in the course of her employment with Cinna Bakers, which rendered her unable to work at any of her jobs. Cinna Bakers and its insurance company (together, Cinna Bakers) accepted Wheeler’s injuries as compensable but disputed whether all three of Wheeler’s concurrent employments should not be aggregated to calculate her Average Weekly Wage (AWW). An administrative law judge determined that only Wheeler’s wage from Cinna Bakers could be utilized to calculate her AWW. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) South Dakota law allows for the aggregation of wages when an injury at one employment renders the worker incapable of performing that employee’s other concurrently held employments; and (2) the Court is persuaded to adopt the “growing minority rule,” which allows for aggregation of wages from all concurrently held employments, not just similar or related employments. View "Wheeler v. Cinna Bakers LLC" on Justia Law

In 2005, Plaintiff suffered a compensable, work-related injury to his neck and back while employed by Ridco, Inc. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, which insured Ridco for purposes of workers’ compensation, paid temporary disability benefits. Plaintiff subsequently sought additional workers’ compensation benefits, which the administrative law judge granted. In 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against Twin City and Ridco, alleging bad faith handling of his workers’ compensation claim. During the discovery stage, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Twin City to produce wholly unredacted claim files, personnel files, and privilege logs. The circuit court ordered Twin City to produce the disputed documents in in unredacted form, concluding that Twin City impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that Twin City implied the attorney-client privilege without conducting an in camera inspection of the documents. Remanded for findings as to whether Twin City injected its reliance upon the advice of counsel into the bad faith litigations, thereby making the disputed communications relevant to the case such that would constitute an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege. View "Andrews v. Ridco, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee was injured in an automobile accident during the course of his employment with Employer. Employer and its Insurer paid workers’ compensation benefits. Employee subsequently settled a claim against the other driver involved in the accident. From that settlement, Employee reimbursed Insurer for the workers’ compensation benefits already paid out at the time of the settlement. The remaining amount of the settlement was determined to be “like damages” for which Employer and Insurer would receive an offset against future medical expenses related to the work injury. Thereafter, Employee submitted bills for ongoing care related to the work injury to his insurers, which paid the bills. Employee then filed a petition requesting workers’ compensation benefits. Employer and Insurer denied benefits, asserting that the amounts paid by other insurers could not be used to reduce the offset against future medical expenses. An administrative law judge and the circuit court concluded that medical expenses paid by Employee’s insurance were properly used to reduce the offset. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that although Employee’s insurance paid medical bills resulting from his compensable injury, those payments were properly considered to reduce the offset because Employee would otherwise be entitled to receive compensation for those expenses. View "Milbrandt v. Bibb’s, Inc." on Justia Law

Aaron Terveen was an employee for the South Dakota Department of Transportation. When returning from a work-related trip, Terveen was involved in a one-automobile accident on a dead-end road just off the highway. The Department of Labor awarded workers’ compensation benefits, determining that Terveen sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The circuit court reversed, concluding that Terveen’s accident and resulting injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of coverage, holding that Terveen had taken a severable side-trip when he was injured, and the side-trip did not arise of or occur in the course of his employment. View "Terveen v. S.D. Dep’t of Transp." on Justia Law

In 2000, while working at Homestake Mining Company, Michael Martz injured his shoulder. Martz was paid workers’ compensation benefits. In 2002, while working for McLaughlin Sawmill (Hills Materials), Martz injured the same shoulder. Hills Materials began paying benefits but, several years later, denied liability for further benefits. Martz petitioned the Department of Labor, contending that both employers were liable for benefits. Homestake was granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. In regards Hills Materials, the Department rejected Martz’s argument that promissory estoppel precluded Hills Materials from denying liability and concluded that Martz failed to satisfy his burden of showing that the 2002 injury was a “major contributing cause” of his current condition. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Hills Materials was not estopped from denying liability for Martz’s current condition and need for treatment; and (2) Martz failed to establish that Hills Materials was liable for benefits where he did not prove a sufficient causal relationship between his 2002 injury and his current condition and need for treatment. View "Martz v. Hills Materials" on Justia Law

Appellant injured his lower back in 2007 while working for Employer. Employer denied further treatment that same year. Appellant filed a petition for hearing in 2009, alleging that he was entitled to medical benefits. Based on a deposition of Dr. Dale Anderson, Employer filed an amended answer admitting that Appellant’s work activities were a major contributing cause to his need for medical treatment. The Department of Labor dismissed the case in 2010. In 2011, Employer denied further medical treatment based upon a recent independent medical evaluation by another doctor. Appellant petitioned for a hearing, arguing that res judicata applied to prevent Employer from changing its position from its previous admittance. The Department found res judicata inapplicable and that Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof on causation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Dr. Anderson’s opinion was adopted by Employer and judicially accepted by the Department through its 2010 order of dismissal, Employer was judicially estopped from taking an inconsistent position; and (2) Appellant met his burden of proving that his work-related activities as of 2010 were a major contributing cause of his disability. Remanded. View "Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advertising, Inc. " on Justia Law