Justia South Dakota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Eric Kolda, a City of Yankton police officer, was terminated for violating police department policies. The City terminated Kolda by delivery of a termination letter. Kolda appealed, and the city manager upheld Kolda’s termination for cause. Kolda did not appeal to the Department of Labor and Regulation but, instead, filed a wrongful discharge action in circuit court. The circuit court ruled that Kolda could only be terminated for cause with notice and that the City failed to provide pre-termination notice. A jury found cause for the termination, and Kolda’s wrongful discharge claim was denied. However, the circuit court awarded Kolda procedural due process damages for lost wages that accrued between the time of his summary termination and the post-termination evidentiary hearing. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the circuit court to vacate the award of damages because Kolda failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the circuit court thus lacked jurisdiction to resolve Kolda’s claims. View "Kolda v. City of Yankton" on Justia Law

Employee was injured at work and underwent surgery. Employee’s health insurer covered the surgery’s costs at a discounted rate. After the Department of Labor found Employer liable for Employee’s condition Employer accepted Employee’s claim and reimbursed Employee for his out of pocket expenses and reimbursed Employee’s insurer for payments it made on Employee’s behalf. Employee challenged the payment, arguing that Employer was required to pay the full medical expense without the health insurance discount. The Department concluded that Employer fulfilled its obligation. The circuit court reversed and found Employer liable for the full medical expense billed before adjustments. Employer appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Department’s order, holding that the Department correctly applied the law in determining that Employer satisfied its statutory reimbursement obligation. View "Whitesell v. Rapid Soft Water & Spas, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant worked for more than ten years as a diesel mechanic for Employer. Claimant had several incidents while working for Employer which he claimed caused neck, back, shoulder, and arm pain. Claimant later submitted a workers' compensation claim and three first reports of injury. Claimant then petitioned the Department of Labor, which denied Claimant workers' compensation benefits based on its finding that Claimant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment. The circuit court affirmed but slightly modified the Department's decision. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Claimant established by a preponderance of the evidence that his employment was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for treatment. Remanded. View "Smith v. Stan Houston Equip. Co." on Justia Law

The day after Julie served her husband Steven with a summons and complaint for divorce, Steven shot and killed Julie near her car in Julie's employer's parking lot. The personal representative of Julie's estate sought worker's compensation benefits for her death, asserting that Julie's death arose out of her employment. Julie's employer (Employer) denied benefits, as did the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that even though the assault occurred on Employer's premises, the assault could not be attributed to Julie's employment, and therefore, Julie's death did not "arise out of" her employment. View "Voeller v. HSBC Card Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an in-home registered nurse, was injured in an automobile accident while driving her employer's vehicle to to a patient's home to perform her nursing duties. Plaintiff incurred $382,849 in medical expenses as a result of the accident. After Plaintiff's employer's workers compensation carrier (AIG) denied Plaintiff's workers compensation claim, Plaintiff filed a medical payments claim with Allstate, with whom Plaintiff had a personal automobile insurance policy that provided $100,000 in medical payments coverage. Allstate failed to provide medical payments benefits immediately to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and AIG later settled Plaintiff's worker's compensation claim for $150,000. Plaintiff then commenced this breach of contract and bad faith action against Allstate based on Allstate's failure to pay medical benefits. The circuit court granted judgment as a matter of law for $33,000 on the breach of contract claim and awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages and $1,500,000 in punitive damages on the bad faith claim. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court erred in excluding Allstate's evidence of AIG's acceptance of the worker's compensation claim, and that exclusion prejudiced Allstate's ability to defend the bad faith and punitive damages claims. View "Bertelsen v. Allstate Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a teacher employed by the Beresford School District. In 2011, the Beresford Board of Education voted not to renew Plaintiff's teaching contract for the upcoming year as part of a reduction-in-force (RIF). Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the Board utilized the wrong RIF policy in not renewing her contract. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board correctly found that the policy for reductions in force was governed by a 2010-2011 negotiated agreement and properly followed the staff reduction policy contained in that agreement in deciding to terminate Plaintiff's employment; (2) the Board correctly applied the 2010-2011 RIF policy; and (3) the Board's decision to eliminate Plaintiff's position was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. View "Huth v. Beresford Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Claimant was employed full-time by School District (District). The District later notified Claimant it was replacing her full-time position with a part-time position, which would consist of seventy-five percent of the time of Claimant's full-time position and a twenty-five percent reduction in pay. Claimant rejected the offer of the part-time position and filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor and Regulation, Unemployment Insurance Division concluded that Claimant was eligible to receive unemployment benefits, and an ALJ affirmed. The Secretary of the Department of Labor reversed, finding that Claimant was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. The circuit reversed, concluding that the part-time position was not "suitable" employment and that Claimant had good cause to reject the offer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Claimant was eligible for unemployment benefits because the twenty-five percent pay reduction made the part-time position unsuitable and gave Claimant good cause to reject the new position. View "Easton v. Hanson Sch. Dist. 30-1 " on Justia Law