On August 10, 2022, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion in the matter of Althoff v. Pro-Tec Roofing, Inc., 2022 S.D. 49, affirming, in part, and reversing, in part, the Third Judicial Circuit Court of South Dakota’s decision to deny both parties’ motions for summary judgment related to the employer’s alleged intentional misconduct. In 2016, Justin Althoff fell to his death while working on the roof of a community center project for Pro-Tec Roofing, Inc. (Pro-Tec). Pro-Tec paid Mr. Althoff’s estate (Estate) workers’ compensation benefits accordingly. The Estate then sued Pro-Tec i ..read more

On August 24, 2022, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion in the matter of Douglas Ries v. JM Custom Homes, LLC, 2022 S.D. 52 indicating workers’ compensation was the only remedy available to Ries, an employee of JM’s subcontractor, under the workers’ compensation statutes SDCL 62-3-2 and SDCL 62-3-10. Pine Tree Plumbing (“Pine Tree”) was a subcontractor of JM Custom Homes, LLC (“JM”). Ries was injured when he fell through a plywood stair while working as an employee of Pine Tree. Ries filed for workers’ compensation benefits against Pine Tree and Pine Tree’s insurer, Acuity Insura ..read more

On July 20, 2022, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued its opinion in the matter of Baker v. Rapid City Regional Hospital and Hartford Insurance, 2022 S.D. 40 affirming the denial of Permanent Total Disability (“PTD”) to the Claimant based in part upon deference to the South Dakota Department of Regulation, Division of Labor Management’s (the “Department”) factual determinations. The Claimant, William Baker, was attacked by a patient and struck on the head in 2013 and 2014 while employed by the Rapid City Regional Hospital (“RCRH”). Baker was subsequently diagnosed with Post Concussive Syndro ..read more

The South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an insurance company clarifying the minimum standards required for a Petition for Hearing under the administrative regulations of the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulations (the “Department”).  On August 18, 2021, the South Dakota Supreme Court released its Opinion in the matter of William May v. Spearfish Pellet Co., LLC, and Western National Mutual Insurance Co., 2021 S.D. 48. Claimant, William May (“May”), injured his left shoulder in 2009 and his right shoulder a year later in 2010 while working at Spearfish Pellet Co ..read more

On June 2, 2021, the Supreme Court of South Dakota released its opinion in the matter of Hughes v. Dakota Mill & Grain, 2021 S.D. 35, which addressed the Court’s interpretation of the causation standard of “a major contributing cause.”.  Although this opinion addresses aspects of the causation standard (i.e., what a claimant does not have to prove), it does not give clear direction regarding how medical experts should interpret the causation standard when there are multiple causes for the condition from which the injured worker complains. Claimant, Taylor Hughes, worked various constr ..read more

The South Dakota Supreme Court recently decided Fern Johnson v. United Parcel Service and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance, 2020 S.D. 39, holding that SDCL 62-7-33 is the exclusive means by which a final decision from the Department of Labor (the “Department”) may be modified. Previously, SDCL 62-7-1 and SDCL 62-1-1(7) were routinely used to revisit and, if appropriate, deny open medical benefits when determining if the work injury remained a major contributing cause of the condition and need for treatment. However, the Court in Fern Johnson determined that this procedure is not appropriate. In a ..read more

As the world is being overwhelmed with questions surrounding the pandemic of COVID-19, the potential implications across several areas of law have resulted in many calls to our office with one common question: If someone believes they contracted COVID-19 at work, is that a compensable workers’ compensation claim? Under South Dakota law, an “injury” is defined, in part, as “only injury arising out and in the course of the employment, and does not include a disease in any form except as it results from the injury.”  SDCL § 62-1-1(7). Thus, the COVID-19 is not an “injury” as defined by South ..read more

On January 15, 2020, the South Dakota Supreme Court issued an opinion in Armstrong v. Longview Farms, LLP, 2020 S.D. 1, that differentiates between the effects of an acute injury and the effects of a non-work-related degenerative condition in assessing causation. This is a significant decision that signals a more nuanced approach to causation, challenging the “cause-in-fact” arguments often asserted in workers’ compensation claims. On March 31, 2016, Armstrong injured his left knee while working for Longview Farms, a pork producer. Armstrong was scraping the floor of Longview Farms’ hog confin ..read more

The South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an insurance company, marking an important and significant clarification in bad faith litigation in workers’ compensation cases.  A recent decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court in Blanchard v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 2019 S.D. 54, refused to extend the scope of bad faith liability for insurance companies to actions surrounding procedural errors made by defense counsel after litigation was commenced. This case clarifies the facts that may be presented as evidence of bad faith, offering insight into the extent an insurer can be he ..read more

According to the Federal District Court in South Dakota, it is only after a workers’ compensation claimant has exhausted her remedies under the South Dakota Workers’ Compensation statutes that a trial court may hear a bad faith claim for denial of workers’ compensation benefits. But what does it mean to exhaust your administrative workers’ compensation remedies? This important question was recently explored in Tovares v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Civ. 16-5051-JLV, 2019 WL 1446390 (Mar. 30, 2019). Citing Hein v. Acuity, 731 N.W.2d 231 (2007), the Court noted that “[t]he unique circumsta ..read more