The
SD Supreme Court handed down three decisions this morning:
1) Injured employee secures Work Comp benefits
by 3/2 ruling;
2) Land trust dispute resolved;
3) SD Guard Members
prevail in pay dispute with Adjutant General.
Summaries
follows:
BREWER v. TECTUM HOLDINGS, INC., 2025 S.D. 23: Employee
sought Work Comp benefits for back-related injury. The ALJ and the trial court denied all
benefits, including a claim for Permanent Total Disability (PTD). The SD Supreme Court affirmed the denial of
PTD benefits, but -- in a split decision (3/2) – reversed and remanded for
other benefits holding that, “Because [Employee] established that his work
injury was a major contributing cause of his current condition and need for
treatment.” The Court’s opinion is authored
by Justice Kern. Justice Myren’s
dissenting opinion, in which Justice DeVaney concurs, would affirm the denial of
all benefits.
STURZENBECHER
v. SIOUX COUNTY RANCH, LLC, 2025 S.D. 24: This litigation involves 1,041 acres
of farm land in Turner County. The
dispute, somewhat complex in nature, and the holding of the lower court are
described in the opening 2 paragraphs of the opinion which are set forth below:
[¶1.] In 2020, Cody Sturzenbecher and his mother, Judy
Sturzenbecher, and Sioux County Ranch, LLC (Sioux County) entered into several
related transactions all connected to the purchase of he Sturzenbechers’ family farm from a trust
in which Judy held a beneficial interest. Under the arrangement, Judy purchased
the farm from the trust using the proceeds of a loan from Sioux ounty. She then conveyed the property to
Sioux County under the terms of a purchase agreement, and Sioux County leased
the farm to Cody. The lease required Cody to make annual payments and ontained an option to purchase the property
at a predetermined price. Cody defaulted under the terms of the lease, and
Sioux County terminated the lease agreement and listed the property for sale.
[¶2.] The Sturzenbechers sought declaratory and injunctive
relief, arguing that Judy’s conveyance of the farm to Sioux County created an
equitable mortgage and was not an absolute sale. The circuit court granted Sturzenbechers’ request
fora preliminary injunction, and also denied Sioux County’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings. Sioux County has appealed both decisions. We affirm.
The
SD Supreme Court affirms in a unanimous (5/0) ruling, with opinion authored by
Justice Salter.
CHRISTIANSEN, ET AL v. MAJOR GENERAL MORRELL, 2025 S.D. 25:
Seven members of the SD’s Air National Guard sued the South Dakota Adjutant
General on the basis of wrongful denial of benefits (15 days of paid military
leave) while serving on Active Duty, having been called into duty, “as active
guard and reserve (AGR) orders issued pursuant to ‘32 USC 328’ and ‘502(F)[.]’”
Relief was sought under the, “Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–35.” The trial court denied
relief, imposing a burden on the plaintiffs of the necessity of, “demonstrate[ing]
the existence of an antimilitary animus.”
The SD Supreme Court reversed, stating:
[¶43.] Whatever the reason, the Adjutant
General has not offered a sufficient legal basis for its all-encompassing AGR
orders theory. And we conclude that the plaintiffs could, at any given ime, be on active duty under either Title 32
or Title 10, but not both. As a result, when the plaintiffs received Title 10
orders, their Title 32 AGR status ended, temporarily, and their uties changed from organizing, administering,
recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components to supporting
active-duty operations, missions, or exercises. Once plaintiffs onverted to Title 10 duty, the exception of
32 U.S.C. § 709(g)(2) does not apply, and the provisions of 5 U.S.C. §
6323(a)(1) allowing 15 days of military leave control.
[¶44.] We conclude that the plaintiffs are
entitled to the accrual of military leave while in Title 10 status and,
accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
This ruling is unanimous (5/0) with opinion authored by
Justice Salter.
These
decisions may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
