Geiman v. State of South Dakota and South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources, 100820 SDWC, 37, 2017/18

• Case Date: October 08, 2020
• Court: South Dakota

Crystal Geiman v. State of South Dakota and South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources HF No. 37, 2017/18 South Dakota Workers Compensation October 8, 2020           Michael S. Beardsley Beardsley, Jensen & Lee           Justin Bell May, Adam, Gerdes & Thompson LLP          HF No. 37, 2017/18 Crystal Geiman v. State of South Dakota and South Dakota Bureau of Human Resources          LETTER DECISION AND ORDER          Dear Mr. Beardsley and Mr. Bell:          This letter addresses the following submissions by the parties:

July 17, 2020 Employer/Insurer’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

August 12, 2020 Claimant’s Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

August 24, 2020 Employer/Insurer’s Memorandum in Support of Partial Summary Judgment

         ISSUE PRESENTED: IS EMPLOYER/INSURER ENTITLED TO PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW?          FACTS          Claimant, Crystal Geiman, is employed by the Unified Judicial System (UJS) as a probation officer in Pennington County, South Dakota. On February 8, 2012, Claimant was injured in a parking ramp adjacent to her office. Claimant was exiting her vehicle when she slipped on a patch of ice and fell. Claimant struck her head and neck on the running board of her pickup and landed on her left elbow and hip. Claimant filed a claim for workers compensation benefits, and Employer/Insurer paid for Claimant’s medical treatment through April 5, 2013. Since Claimant’s accident, she has continued to work full time for Employer, though it has provided Claimant with accommodations. Employer/Insurer filed a motion for partial judgement arguing that Claimant is not entitled to workers compensation benefits. It also contends that Claimant is not eligible for medical payments beyond Claimant’s out-of-pocket costs to meet her deductible of her health insurance.          A. Claimant’s Claim for Permanent Total Disability          Employer/Insurer argues that Claimant is not entitled to permanent total disability benefits because she has continued to work full time for employer. Employer/Insurer...