The SD Supreme Court handed down two decisions this morning:
1) Work comp claim for total permanent disability for PTSD and
PCS denied;
2) Mutual wills litigation resolved;
Summaries follows:
BAKER v. RAPID CITY REGIONAL HOSPITAL, 2022 S.D. 40: Employee
was injured as a result of assaults by patients. He made this work comp claim for permanent
total disability, asserting that his head injuries generated PTSD
(Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) and PCS (Post-Concussive Syndrome). The DOL denied his claim on the bases of 1)
failure to show causation (that work injuries were a major contributing cause)
and 2) failure to establish permanent total disability. The circuit court reversed on causation and
remanded. On remand, the DOL awarded
medical expenses but again denied permanent total disability. Worker appeals denial of permanent total
disability. The SD Supreme Court
affirmed, holding that evidence did not establish permanent total disability. This decision is unanimous (5-0), with
opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
Retired Justice Konenkamp and Circuit Judge Vinberg-Wickre sat on this
case, in lieu of Justices Kern and DeVaney, disqualified.
ESTATE OF SMEENK, 2022 S.D. 41: In 2017 H & W (Neil and
Denise) “executed mutual wills” together with “an agreement
that neither party would revoke their respective wills without the other’s
consent.” In 2019,
H executed a new will without W’s consent.
H died. This dispute deals with
the aftermath. The result at the trial
level and on appeal is set forth in the opening paragraph of the opinion:
After Neil’s
death, the circuit court ordered the 2019 Will to be probated and appointed
Denise as personal representative of Neil’s estate (Estate). Denise filed a
motion for approval and payment of claim (Motion) in her capacity as personal
representative and sought specific performance of the Agreement [not
to revoke without consent Denise’s consent]. The
circuit court determined the Motion was not properly presented as a creditor
claim and was untimely under the
nonclaim statute. However, the court considered the merits of the Motion
and determined that Denise was not
entitled to specific performance. Denise appeals, arguing that the Motion was a
timely and properly presented creditor’s claim and that she is entitled to specific performance
as the remedy for Neil’s alleged breach of
the Agreement. We conclude that the circuit court erred in determining
that Denise’s claim was not timely and
properly presented but correctly ruled that
Denise was not entitled to specific performance. We therefore affirm in
part and reverse in part.
Details concerning the SD Supreme Court’s holding are also
found in the final paragraph of the opinion:
[¶41.] The
circuit court erred in determining that Denise failed to substantially comply with SDCL 29A-3-804 in presenting
the creditor claim within the time requirements of SDCL 29A-3-803, and we
vacate the circuit court’s findings of
fact and conclusions of law from February 2, 2021, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.
However, the court properly considered
whether Denise could seek court approval of her request for specific
performance of he Agreement. We affirm
the circuit court’s determination that Denise is not entitled to the remedy of specific
performance on her claim for the alleged breach of the Agreement.
This ruling is unanimous (5-0), with opinion authored by Chief Justice Jensen.
These decisions may be
accessed at
