State Auto Insurance Companies v. Meyer, 040120 SDWC, 52, 2019/20

Case DateApril 01, 2020
CourtSouth Dakota
State Auto Insurance Companies
v.
Eric Meyer
HF No. 52, 2019/20
South Dakota Workers Compensation
April 1, 2020
          Seamus W. Culhane Turbak Law Offices, P.C.           J. G. Shultz Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith PC          RE: HF No. 52, 2019/20 – State Auto Insurance Companies v. Eric Meyer          Dear Culhane and Mr. Shultz:          This letter addresses the following submissions by the parties:
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 Motion
         ISSUE 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

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT