956 N.W.2d 812
S.D.2021Background
- Claimant Steven Billman (age early-60s) suffered a work injury in 2015 that resulted in a below‑knee amputation of his left leg and ongoing prosthetic fit and diabetes-related health issues.
- Treating physician imposed light‑duty restrictions (no climbing, squatting, balancing; lift ≤20 lbs; limited sitting/standing); SSA found Billman disabled and he received a permanent partial award.
- Billman’s relevant work history and training are in CAD/drafting and mechanical design, but much of his software training is outdated (SolidWorks, MicroStation vs. market preference for AutoCAD).
- Two vocational experts conflicted: claimant’s expert considered physical and self‑reported limits and found limited retraining options; employer’s expert largely focused on capabilities and found some entry‑level/clerical/CAD openings in the regional market.
- The Department denied odd‑lot (permanent total) benefits, concluding Billman was not obviously unemployable and had not shown an unreasonable, good‑faith job search; the circuit court affirmed.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, holding the Department clearly erred in finding Billman not obviously unemployable and that Clarke/Insurer failed to meet their burden of showing suitable, regularly‑available work for a person with Billman’s combined limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Department clearly erred in finding Billman not "obviously unemployable" under SDCL 62‑4‑53 | Billman: combined effect of amputation, prosthetic problems, limited sitting/standing, frequent days off, age, and outdated training make him obviously unemployable | Clarke/Insurer: light‑duty restrictions, adaptability, prior success learning software, and jobs identified by vocational expert show employability | Reversed: Court held Department clearly erred — when factors are considered together Billman made prima facie showing of odd‑lot disability |
| Whether Department clearly erred in finding Billman failed to make a reasonable job search | Billman: search was limited by physical/age/training realities; employer’s market surveys ignored some limitations and commuting feasibility | Clarke/Insurer: employer identified available positions in the community and Billman limited his search geographically and temporally | Not reached on merits: Because Billman succeeded on obvious‑unemployability, court did not need to decide claimant’s search; court also held employer failed to prove suitable, regularly‑available jobs for Billman’s full set of limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Eite v. Rapid City Area Sch. Dist. 51‑4, 739 N.W.2d 264 (S.D. 2007) (explains two avenues to establish odd‑lot disability: obvious unemployability or reasonable unsuccessful job search)
- Baier v. Dean Kurtz Constr., 761 N.W.2d 601 (S.D. 2009) (deference to Department factual findings; prima facie showing is question of fact)
- Shepherd v. Moorman Mfg., 467 N.W.2d 916 (S.D. 1991) (employer must rebut claimant’s prima facie showing of odd‑lot disability)
- Johnson v. Powder River Transp., 640 N.W.2d 739 (S.D. 2002) (employer must show positions are actually open and not merely possible)
- Sandner v. Minnehaha County, 652 N.W.2d 778 (S.D. 2002) (defines claimant’s "community" and when commuting/cost considerations may limit labor market)
- Capital Motors, LLC v. Schied, 660 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 2003) (employer identification of only a few unsuitable positions insufficient to meet its burden)
- Wise v. Brooks Constr. Servs., 721 N.W.2d 461 (S.D. 2006) (standard of review for agency factual findings: clearly erroneous)
- Kuhle v. Lecy Chiropractic, 711 N.W.2d 244 (S.D. 2006) (mixed questions of law and fact are fully reviewable)
- Enger v. FMC, 565 N.W.2d 79 (S.D. 1997) (prospective employers must be informed of claimant’s limitations for their willingness to accommodate to be probative)