Slama v. Landmann Jungman Hosp., No. 22303.

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: SABERS, Justice.
• Citation: 654 N.W.2d 826,2002 SD 151
• Parties: Marjorie A. SLAMA, Claimant and Appellant, v. LANDMANN JUNGMAN HOSPITAL, Employer and Appellee, and Phico Insurance Company, Insurer and Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 22303.
• Decision Date: 04 December 2002

654 N.W.2d 826
2002 SD 151

Marjorie A. SLAMA, Claimant and Appellant,
v.
LANDMANN JUNGMAN HOSPITAL, Employer and Appellee, and
Phico Insurance Company, Insurer and Appellee

No. 22303.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs October 8, 2002.

Decided December 4, 2002.

654 N.W.2d 827

Daniel L. Fox, Fox, Youngberg & Lewno, Yankton, for appellant

Rick W. Orr, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for appellees.

SABERS, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Marjorie Slama appeals a circuit court order dismissing her appeal of a South Dakota Department of Labor decision on her claim for workers' compensation benefits. We affirm.

FACTS

[¶ 2.] An administrative law judge for the South Dakota Department of Labor granted summary judgment to Slama's employer, Landmann Jungman Hospital, and its insurer, Phico Insurance Company, on Slama's claim for workers' compensation benefits. Slama attempted to appeal the summary judgment to circuit court. To perfect the appeal, her counsel served copies of the notice of appeal on the department and on the attorney for the hospital and insurer, but not on the administrative law judge. Opposing counsel moved to dismiss the appeal for violation of the service requirements of SDCL 1-26-31: "[a]n appeal shall be taken by serving a copy of a notice of appeal upon the adverse party, upon the agency, and upon the hearing examiner, if any, who rendered the decision [.]" Slama's counsel responded by arguing that the administrative law judge was not a "hearing examiner" as contemplated by SDCL 1-26-31 and, therefore, his service of copies of the notice of appeal on the other required parties was sufficient to perfect the appeal. Relying on the plain language of the statute, the circuit court disagreed and dismissed Slama's appeal. This appeal followed.

ISSUE

[¶ 3.] Did the circuit court err in dismissing Slama's appeal?

[¶ 4.] In appeals to circuit court from decisions of administrative agencies, "SDCL 1-26-31 clearly delineates who must be served with a notice of appeal and when and where it must be filed in order to transfer jurisdiction from the executive to the judicial branch." Schreifels v. Kottke Trucking, 2001 SD 90, ¶ 12, 631 N.W.2d 186, 189. Failure to follow the plain language of the statute deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal and requires its dismissal. Id. See also Stark v. Munce Bros. Transfer & Storage, 461 N.W.2d 587, 589 (S.D.1990) (failure of workers' compensation claimant to serve timely notice of appeal on department of labor was jurisdictional error requiring dismissal of appeal).

[¶ 5.] SDCL 1-26-31 required Slama to serve her notice of appeal on "the hearing examiner, if any, who rendered the decision[.]" "`Words and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect. When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous,

654 N.W.2d 828

there is no reason for construction, and the Court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.'" Arends v. Dacotah Cement, 2002 SD 57, ¶ 11, 645 N.W.2d 583, 587 (quoting Martinmaas v. Engelmann, 2000 SD 85, ¶ 49, 612 N.W.2d 600, 611). The term "hearing examiner" has a plain meaning identical to the term "administrative law judge." As set forth in Black's Law Dictionary 46 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th ed.1999)

administrative-law judge. An official who presides at an administrative hearing and who has the power to administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence, and make factual and legal determinations. 5 USCA § 556(c). — Abbr. ALJ.— Also termed hearing examiner, hearing

...