941 N.W.2d 223
S.D.2020Background
- Christina LaPlante, a CNA, injured her right wrist at work in August 2012 and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- She filed a workers’ compensation petition on October 29, 2015; Employer/Insurer answered and discovery and settlement discussions occurred through 2016.
- LaPlante entered a state vocational rehabilitation (voc‑rehab) program in March 2017 and participated through November 2017 to regain employability within her restrictions.
- Employer/Insurer moved to dismiss the petition for lack of prosecution under ARSD 47:03:01:09 (no activity for at least one year); the Department dismissed, finding no "record activity" and that LaPlante’s voc‑rehab participation was not activity because she did not notify Employer/Insurer.
- The circuit court affirmed; the Supreme Court reversed, holding participation in the vocational rehabilitation program constituted activity under the rule and that the Department abused its discretion by dismissing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department properly dismissed LaPlante's petition under ARSD 47:03:01:09 for "no activity" for at least one year (and whether voc‑rehab participation counts as activity or good cause) | LaPlante: participation in voc‑rehab is activity affecting claim value and settlement potential; she provided verification to the Department | Employer/Insurer: no communications or case proceedings within the year; activity must be shown on the case record or communicated to employer | Court: reversed — voc‑rehab participation qualifies as "activity" under ARSD 47:03:01:09; dismissal was an abuse of discretion and case remanded to reinstate petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Eischen v. Wayne Twp., 744 N.W.2d 788 (S.D. 2008) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Martz v. Hills Materials, 857 N.W.2d 413 (S.D. 2014) (de novo review where administrative findings rest solely on documentary evidence)
- White Eagle v. City of Fort Pierre, 647 N.W.2d 716 (S.D. 2002) (under SDCL 15-11-11 activity must be verifiable in the record)
- Annett v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 548 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1996) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is an extreme remedy; requires unreasonable unexplained delay)
- Rotenberger v. Burghduff, 727 N.W.2d 291 (S.D. 2007) (SDCL 15-11-11 dismissals are clerical docket‑management tools and not necessarily with prejudice)
- Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc., 575 N.W.2d 225 (S.D. 1998) (workers’ compensation statutes construed liberally in favor of claimants)
- Holmoe v. Reuss, 403 N.W.2d 30 (S.D. 1987) (activity claims unsupported by the settled record will not be considered)