Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advertising, Inc.
2014 SD 64
| S.D. | 2014Background
- Hayes was injured March 27, 2007 while employed by Rosenbaum Signs; the employer treated the claim as compensable and paid medical treatment.
- Employer requested an independent medical evaluation (IME) on October 4, 2007 and based on that evaluation denied further medical treatment.
- Hayes filed a petition for hearing on May 13, 2009; his treating physician opined the 2007 injury remained a major contributing cause of his current condition and treatment needs; Dr. Anderson testified MMI and a 50/50 split between preexisting fusion and the 2007 injury.
- Employer amended its answer on July 30, 2010 admitting that Hayes’ work activities were currently a major contributing cause to his current need for medical treatment or low back pain, and the Department dismissed the case without prejudice on August 3, 2010.
- On May 2, 2011, Hayes was sent for another IME with Dr. Segal, who testified the 2007 injury was no longer a major contributing cause and attributed Hayes’ ongoing problems to a longstanding preexisting condition.
- Hayes petitioned for a hearing in 2013; the Department found res judicata inapplicable and that Hayes failed to prove causation; the circuit court affirmed, and Hayes appeals alleging res judicata/judicial estoppel preclusion and failure to prove major contributing cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preclusion by res judicata or judicial estoppel | Hayes argues the August 3, 2010 order dismissal without prejudice and admission control precludes changing position. | Rosenbaum argues res judicata does not apply and judicial estoppel is not warranted. | Judicial estoppel applies; inconsistent positions barred. |
| Whether Hayes proved the 2007 injury remains a major contributing cause as of August 3, 2010 | Hayes contends the 2007 injury was and remains a major contributing cause. | Rosenbaum contends the responsibility shifted to preexisting condition and current disability is not due to 2007 injury. | Hayes proved the 2007 injury was a major contributing cause as of August 3, 2010. |
Key Cases Cited
- Link v. L.S.I., Inc., 2010 S.D. 103 (2010) (explains issue vs. claim preclusion in res judicata)
- Am. Family Ins. Grp. v. Robnik, 2010 S.D. 69 (2010) (defines issue and claim preclusion in SD context)
- Nemec v. Goeman, 2012 S.D. 14 (2012) (broad view of claim preclusion and res judicata scope)
- Kasuske v. Farwell, Ozmun, Kirk & Co., 2006 S.D. 14 (2006) (change in condition procedure under SDCL 62-7-33)
- Sopko v. C&R Transfer Co., 1998 S.D. 8 (1998) (precedent on change in condition and burden shifting)
- Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 2006) (judicial estoppel in workers’ compensation context)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2007) (admission's effect on disposition relevant to estoppel)
- Mills v. Spink Elec. Co-op., 442 N.W.2d 243 (S.D. 1989) (change in condition and reopening framework)
- Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co., 489 N.W.2d 353 (S.D. 1992) (liberal construction for workers’ compensation in ambiguity)
- Darling v. W. River Masonry, Inc., 2010 S.D. 4 (2010) (claimant burden by preponderance in compensable injury analysis)
- Orth v. Stoebner & Permann Const., Inc., 2006 S.D. 99 (2006) (framework for proving major contributing cause)