840 N.W.2d 669
S.D.2013Background
- Employee Darin Schuelke operated heavy equipment for Belle Fourche Irrigation District beginning in 1988 and reported cumulative wrist/elbow injuries; initial first report filed 2/22/2000.
- Employer/insurer accepted the claim, paid medical expenses and a 26% upper-extremity impairment, and last paid benefits in August 2004.
- Claimant received no compensable payments for over three years, later sought additional treatment beginning 2007 and filed a second first-report on 10/5/2009 and a petition for hearing on 12/20/2010.
- Employer denied the second claim as time-barred under SDCL 62-7-35.1 (three years from last payment to file a petition for additional benefits).
- The Department and the circuit court found SDCL 62-7-35.1 barred the claim; Schuelke appealed arguing the cumulative-trauma doctrine should prevent application of the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 62-7-35.1 bars Schuelke’s second claim for additional benefits | Schuelke: cumulative-trauma rules make the date of injury the last day worked, so benefits have not yet been "tendered on account of an injury" for statute to run | Employer: statute runs from last payment of benefits, regardless of cumulative-trauma characterization | Held: SDCL 62-7-35.1 applies; claim barred because more than three years elapsed after last payment before petitioning |
| Whether the cumulative-trauma doctrine alters the triggering event for SDCL 62-7-35.1 | Schuelke: date-of-injury rules for cumulative trauma should control and defeat the three-year bar | Employer: cumulative-trauma date-of-injury is irrelevant to 62-7-35.1; trigger is last payment date | Held: Cumulative-trauma doctrine affects date of injury but not the statute’s trigger; court enforces plain language of 62-7-35.1 |
| Whether treating a claimant who continued working as exempt would nullify the statute | Schuelke: continued work means injury not "occurred" for limitations purposes | Employer: that interpretation would repeal the statute by implication and make it meaningless | Held: Court rejects Schuelke’s reading as effectively repealing statute by implication |
| Whether any statutory exception applies | Schuelke: implied exception for cumulative trauma | Employer: only explicit exception is for review/revision under §62-7-33, not invoked here | Held: No applicable exception; statutory three-year bar controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc., 620 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 2000) (SDCL 62-7-35.1 limitations period applies where benefits ceased without denial and matter lay inactive)
- Thurman v. Zandstra Construction, 785 N.W.2d 268 (S.D. 2010) (expiration of the three-year period under SDCL 62-7-35.1 is dispositive)
- Treaster v. Dillon Co., 987 P.2d 325 (Kan. 1999) (adopts last-day-work rule for date of injury in cumulative-trauma cases to avoid prejudicing claimants)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeal Bd., 396 A.2d 902 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1979) (recognizes cumulative trauma as compensable absent a single traumatic event)