Justia Labor & Employment Law 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 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

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

Appellant worked for the City of Sioux Falls as an assistant city attorney. In 2010, Appellant was terminated for violating various subsections of the Sioux Falls City Ordinance. Appellant appealed and applied for an alternative writ of mandamus to compel discovery of certain documents including personnel records of other city employees. The trial court denied the writ, determining that the files were not relevant to Appellant's appeal of his termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge had jurisdiction to preside over the writ of mandamus; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the writ of mandamus, as Appellant did not prove the existence of a clear legal duty to act; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial. View "Tornow v. Sioux Falls Civil Serv. Bd." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff's surgeon, Dr. Krouse, performed wrist surgery on Plaintiff's left wrist, Plaintiff visited another orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Curd, complaining of continuing pain. Dr. Curd concluded that another surgery was necessary to remove the metal plate and screws implanted by Dr. Krouse. After the surgery was performed, Plaintiff brought suit for medical malpractice against Dr. Krouse and the hospital in which she was treated during her first surgery. A jury returned a verdict for Dr. Krouse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) excluding another doctor's previously undisclosed opinion that Dr. Krouse breached the standard of care; and (2) rejecting Plaintiff's proposed jury instruction on res ipsa loquitor. View "Thompson v. Avera Queen of Peace Hosp." on Justia Law