922 N.W.2d 784
S.D.2019Background
- In 2011 Skjonsberg fractured her right foot at work for Menard and later suffered a related ankle fracture during recovery; both injuries required surgery and generated medical bills.
- In 2014 the South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation granted partial summary judgment holding Employer and Insurer liable for the medical expenses; that order was not appealed.
- Employer and Insurer delayed payment of the incurred medical bills; after two years Skjonsberg filed a second motion for partial summary judgment (Sept. 9, 2016) seeking payment of unpaid medical expenses.
- Employer and Insurer filed an affidavit and limited resistance stating they had resolved the outstanding medical bills (totaling $8,236.76) with providers before the Department issued its 2016 order.
- Despite those representations, the Department again granted Skjonsberg partial summary judgment in Nov. 2016; the Department denied reconsideration and the circuit court later affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the claim was moot and remanding with instructions to vacate and dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department erred by granting Skjonsberg’s 2016 motion for partial summary judgment for medical expenses | Skjonsberg sought enforcement of the Department’s prior 2014 liability determination and payment of unpaid medical bills | Employer/Insurer argued the issue was moot because they had paid/resolved the medical bills before the Department’s 2016 order | The court held the claim was moot (medical bills had been resolved pre-order); reversed and remanded with instruction to vacate and dismiss |
| Whether an exception to mootness applies (capable of repetition yet evading review or public interest) | Implied: leave judgment intact to deter delay and vindicate rights | Argued exceptions inapplicable because recurrence improbable and no broad public interest implicated | The court found exceptions inapplicable—no demonstrated probability of recurrence and no public interest basis |
| Whether the appellate courts should overlook procedural default by Employer/Insurer in filing a statement of issues | Skjonsberg urged affirmance based on procedural rule failure | Employer/Insurer sought leave to file statement of issues; circuit court granted leave | Court did not reach or need to address this because it disposed of the appeal on mootness; Supreme Court did not consider Skjonsberg’s plain error argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Dakota Trailer Mfg., Inc. v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 866 N.W.2d 545 (S.D. 2015) (standard of review for appeals from administrative agency decisions)
- Lagler v. Menard, Inc., 915 N.W.2d 707 (S.D. 2018) (framework for reviewing agency factual and legal rulings)
- Larson v. Krebs, 898 N.W.2d 10 (S.D. 2017) (mootness doctrine and the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 764 N.W.2d 895 (S.D. 2009) (mootness requires a live controversy that will affect legal rights)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2013) (statement that a dispute is moot when it no longer embeds an actual controversy over particular legal rights)
- United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435 (U.S. 1936) (appellate power to vacate lower-court rulings entered without jurisdiction due to mootness)
- Phelps-Roper v. Koster, 815 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 2016) (vacatur and dismissal for mootness when the underlying controversy ceased before final judgment)