Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Claimant was injured on a job site while working in North Dakota for the North Dakota office of Hamm & Phillips Service Company. Claimant worked about sixty percent of the time in North Dakota and about thirty-five percent of the time in South Dakota and lived in South Dakota. Claimant filed for and received benefits through North Dakota's workers' compensation agency, but after about nine months of benefits, he received a benefit denial notification from the agency. Claimant then filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits in South Dakota. While awaiting adjudication of that claim, Claimant died of causes unrelated to his injury. His wife (Wife) sought to substitute herself as a party in the South Dakota claim. The South Dakota Department of Labor granted Wife's motion to substitute but dismissed the claim for lack of statutory jurisdiction. The circuit court reversed the motion to substitute Sharon and affirmed the dismissal for lack of statutory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court's dismissal for lack of statutory jurisdiction because South Dakota was not the location of the employment relationship; and (2) did not reach the issue of substitution. View "Knapp v. Hamm & Phillips" on Justia Law

Claimant-Appellant Megan Peterson worked at a nursing home owned by The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society (Good Samaritan). Claimant alleged that she sustained a work-related injury to her back when assisting a resident with a wheelchair. Good Samaritan denied the claim. Two doctors, who testified by deposition, disagreed whether Claimant suffered a work-related injury and whether employment was a major contributing cause of her back condition. The Department of Labor (Department), after considering the depositions and Claimant's medical records, determined that she failed to prove she sustained a compensable work-related injury. The Department also determined that Claimant failed to prove that her employment remained a major contributing cause of her condition and need for treatment. The circuit court affirmed. On de novo review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court concluded that one of the doctor's opinions was sufficient to meet Claimant's burden of proving that her employment caused a work-related injury and that was and remained a major contributing cause of her back condition and need for treatment.

The Surgical Institute of South Dakota, P.C. filed suit against Dr. Matthew Sorrell who was formerly employed by the practice. The practice alleged breach of contract against the physician for failing to give required notice of resignation and breach of an implied contract resulting in unjust enrichment. The implied contract claim was dismissed by summary judgment; a jury found the physician did not breach the contract. The practice timely appealed the dismissal of its implied contract claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the practice's motion for a new trial. Additionally, the Court found that the practice did not show a "clear abuse of discretion" in excluding certain evidence from trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Defendant Paul Wentzlaff, an insurance agent, stole thousands of dollars from Harvey Severson, an elderly man who asked Defendant to help manage his financial affairs. Plaintiff Donald Hass, as personal representative for Severson’s estate, sued Defendant and two insurance companies who appointed Defendant as an agent, North American Company for Life and Health Insurance (North American) and Allianz Life Insurance of North America (Allianz). Hass and North American each moved for summary judgment and Allianz joined North American’s motion. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the insurance companies’ motion. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the insurance companies were vicariously liable for Defendant's acts. Based on undisputed material facts on the record in this case, the Supreme Court found that Defendant Wentzlaff was not acting within the scope of his employment when he stole money from Severson, and thus, as a matter of law, North American and Allianz were not vicariously liable for his acts. The Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurance companies.

Michael Manuel, the sole owner of Toner Plus, Inc., closed his business on May 30, 2009. Manuel then filed a personal claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor determined that Manuel was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits because he "voluntarily" dissolved his business and did not have "good cause" for doing so under S.D. Codified Laws 61-6-13 to -13.1 The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the ALJ did not err in finding the Department met its burden of showing Manuel's decision to terminate his employment with Toner Plus was voluntary; and (2) the Court did not need to address whether Manuel had "good cause" for voluntarily terminating his employment.

James Cornelius initiated a declaratory judgment action against National Casualty Company to determine whether a policy of insurance issued by National Casualty to Cornelius's employer, Live Line Maintenance, provided uninsured motorist coverage to Cornelius for injuries he sustained while occupying a vehicle owned by Live Line. The circuit court granted National Casualty's motion for summary judgment, finding that Cornelius could not recover uninsured motorist benefits. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment for National Casualty because Cornelius presented evidence to support his claim that there was a casual connection between Live Line and Live Line's proprietor's alleged negligent maintenance of the work vehicle and the accident that caused Cornelius's injuries.

Patrick Kendall suffered a work-related injury while working at John Morrell and Company, a self-insured employer. Morrell initially accepted Kendall's workers' compensation claim, but because Kendall later missed a number of physical therapy and doctor's appointments, Morrell later denied all further benefits relating to the injury. Almost three years later, Kendall filed a petition with the state Department of Labor requesting additional benefits for the injury. The Department granted summary judgment in favor of Morrell, concluding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that all of Kendall's claims for benefits were procedurally barred by the statute of limitations in S.D. Codified Laws 62-7-35.

Employee received workers' compensation benefits for a neck and back injury he suffered in 2002 while working for Employer. After his benefits were discontinued in 2004, Employee sought treatment for a low back condition and petitioned the Department of Labor for workers' compensation benefits. The Department denied the petition, ruling that Employee did not prove his low back condition was related to his original 2002 work injury. The circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department correctly denied workers' compensation benefits where Employee failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 2002 injury was a major contributing cause of his current low back condition.

Employee was prosecuted for theft from his Employer, but he was acquitted by a jury. Employee later commenced an action for malicious prosecution against Employer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer, concluding (1) Employee did not establish legal causation between Employer's report of theft and the criminal prosecution, and (2) Employee failed to establish the absence of probable cause to prosecute. Employee appealed, arguing that although the decision to prosecute was made by the state's attorney and grand jury, his claim was actionable because Employer did not give full and correct information to the authorities. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err where (1) Employer's report was not the legal cause of the prosecution, and (2) Employee identified no facts suggesting that the prosecution was based on such information and that but for such information the decision to prosecute would not have been made by the prosecutor.

Employee was injured while working for Employer, a railroad corporation, by falling on snow-covered ice. Employee filed a personal injury claim under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), which permits suit against railroads for an employee's injury that results in whole or in part from the railroad's negligence. A jury returned a verdict in Employee's favor and awarded Employee $300,000 in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in allowing evidence of drainage problems and failing to enter a judgment as a matter of law on foreseeability; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Employer's motion for a new trial; (3) the trial court did not err in permitting Employee to receive post-judgment interest from the date of the verdict until the entry of judgment; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by granting Employer a set-off on the judgment.