Nilson v. Clay County, No. 18771

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: AMUNDSON; MILLER, C.J., SABERS and KONENKAMP, JJ., and WUEST; GILBERTSON
• Citation: 534 N.W.2d 598
• Parties: Sylvia NILSON, Claimant and Appellee, v. CLAY COUNTY and South Dakota Municipal League Workers Compensation Fund, Appellants. . Considered on Briefs
• Docket Number: No. 18771
• Decision Date: 30 November 1994

Page 598

534 N.W.2d 598 Sylvia NILSON, Claimant and Appellee,
v.
CLAY COUNTY and South Dakota Municipal League Workers
Compensation Fund, Appellants. No. 18771. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs Nov. 30, 1994.
Decided July 19, 1995.

Richard D. Hagerty of Hagerty Law Offices Yankton, for appellee.

Lori Purcell Fossen of Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for appellants.

AMUNDSON, Justice.

Clay County and the South Dakota Municipal League Worker's Compensation Fund (Clay County) appeal the trial court's order finding Sylvia Nilson (Nilson) was a "seasonal employee," and modifying the South Dakota Department of Labor's (Department) calculation of worker's compensation benefits. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Nilson and Clay County stipulated to the relevant facts of this case. On February 5, 1992, Nilson was appointed election judge for the Irene Town Precinct pursuant to SDCL 12-15-1. Nilson's term was for two years and covered any general or local election.

On February 20, 1992, after attending an instructional meeting, Nilson, age 76, suffered injuries when she fell in the parking lot of the Clay County Courthouse. Nilson filed a personal injury suit against Clay County, which was converted into a worker's compensation claim. Clay County paid over $20,000 in medical expenses associated with Nilson's injury.

As an election judge, Nilson received $15.00 for attending the instructional meeting. If she had been able to perform as judge over the primary election, she would have received $75.00. She would have also received $75.00 for the June primary and $75.00 for the general election in the fall of 1992. As judge for the 1990 elections, Nilson received $153.64 as total compensation for her duties.

Nilson filed a petition for hearing before Department, seeking worker's compensation benefits for her injuries suffered in the scope of her employment. Nilson argued she was a "volunteer" pursuant to SDCL 62-1-5.1, entitling her to the maximum benefits allowed by the worker's compensation statutes. ¹

Contrary to Nilson's position, Clay County argued that she was an "employee" under SDCL 62-1-3. ² Department agreed with

Page 600

Clay County and awarded compensation at the rate of $4.62 per week, based on her actual earnings as an "employee." ³ Department calculated Nilson's earnings as the amount of compensation she would receive for the three elections and the election school ($75 + $75 + $75 + $15 = $240) and divided that amount by 52 weeks for a total of $4.62 per week.

Nilson appealed Department's order to the circuit court. The sole issue raised by Nilson was her classification as an "employee." The circuit court affirmed Department's "employee" classification of Nilson pursuant to SDCL 62-1-3. Nilson did not appeal the classification issue to this court. The circuit court then calculated Nilson's benefit based on "seasonal employment" under SDCL 62-4-27. ⁴ The trial court's benefit computation took Nilson's average earnings for overseeing elections, which was $75, then multiplied that number by 200 and divided by 52. This figure resulted in an average week's earnings of $288.46. At no time before Department, or on appeal, did either party argue Nilson was a "seasonal employee," or that her worker's compensation benefits should be so calculated.

Clay County appeals the circuit court's award of benefits pursuant to SDCL 62-4-27.

ISSUE

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CALCULATING NILSON'S WORKER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS UNDER SDCL 62-4-27 (SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT)?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review of an administrative appeal is governed by SDCL 1-26-36 and 37. Thomas v. Custer State Hosp., 511 N.W.2d 576, 578 (S.D.1994); Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co., 489 N.W.2d 353, 357 (S.D.1992); In re Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 382 N.W.2d 413, 415-16 (S.D.1986). The issue to be resolved in this case is essentially a question of law. SDCL 1-26-36 provides that questions of law are fully reviewable. Thomas, 511 N.W.2d at 579; Brown v. John Morrell & Co., 511 N.W.2d 277, 278 (S.D.1994); Caldwell, 489 N.W.2d at 357; Permann v. Dep't of Labor, Unemp. Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113, 117 (S.D.1987). "It is well within our province to interpret statutes without any assistance from the administrative agency." Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 117. We review the administrative agency's decision, as did the circuit court, unaided by any presumption that the circuit court's decision was correct. Thomas, 511 N.W.2d at 579 (citations omitted). Hence, we give no deference to either the agency or the circuit court conclusions of law.

DECISION

The sole issue appealed to the circuit court by Nilson was her classification as an "employee." SDCL 62-4-27, which established the wage calculation for "seasonal employment," was never argued before Department nor on appeal to the circuit court. In Meade Educ. Ass'n. v. Meade School Dist. 46-1, 399 N.W.2d 885, 889 (S.D.1987), this court stated that trial courts "should not pass upon issues of fact and conclusions of law which have not been decided by the agency[.]" The trial court was misguided by extending its review and fashioning a remedy outside of the classification

Page 601

issue. Nevertheless, the issue on appeal before this court is whether or not Nilson's benefits should be calculated under "seasonal employment," SDCL 62-4-27.

When interpreting the law of worker's compensation, three principles are considered. Caldwell, 489 N.W.2d at 364. First, " 'proceedings under the Work[er]'s Compensation Law ... are purely statutory, and the rights of the parties and the manner of procedure under the law must be determined by its provisions.' " Id. (quoting Chittenden v. Jarvis, 68 S.D. 5, 8, 297 N.W. 787, 788 (1941)). Second, "we must assume that the legislature meant what the statute says and therefore give its words and phrases a plain meaning and effect." Caldwell at 364 (citing Dubbelde v. John Morrell &...