State Auto Insurance Companies v. Meyer, 040120 SDWC, 52, 2019/20
Case Date | April 01, 2020 |
Court | South Dakota |
August 3, 2018 Claimant’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Production of Documents
August 23, 2018 Employer/Insurer’s Opposition to Motion Affidavit of Jennifer Van Anne
September 10, 2018 Claimant’s Reply in Support of MotionISSUE PRESENTED: IS CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO A DISMISSAL AS A MATTER OF LAW? FACTS On February 21, 2019, Claimant, Eric Meyer, was injured when the vehicle he was riding was struck from behind by a semi-truck. Employer/Insurer initially treated these injuries as compensable and paid medical and temporary benefits to Claimant. However, it later asserted that Claimant was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident and therefore not entitled to benefits. On November 8, 2019, Insurer filed a petition for a determination that Claimant was not entitled to workers compensation benefits and that Insurer was entitled to recoup any workers compensation benefits paid to Claimant. Claimant filed a response and motion to dismiss on February 6, 2019 arguing that no case in controversy exists in this case and thereof the Department is without jurisdiction to consider Insurer’s petition. Analysis Claimant asserts since Insurer has paid all benefits, no controversy exists, and the Department is without jurisdiction to hear this petition. Employer/Insurer counters that it is not precluded from challenging benefits it has already paid. In support of its argument, Employer/Insurer cite to Tiensvold v. Universal Transp., Inc., 464 N.W.2d 820, 825 (S.D. 1991). Tiensvold involved the appeal of the Department’s award of benefits to the claimant after he was injured in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial