#25739-a-GAS 

2011 S.D. 57

IN THE SUPREME COURT 

OF THE 

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

VERA MARTIN, Appellant, 

 v. 

AMERICAN COLLOID COMPANY 

and AMERICAN INSURANCE 

COMPANY, Appellees. 

* * * * 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA 

* * * * 

HONORABLE MARK BARNETT 

Judge 

* * * * 

MICHAEL J. SIMPSON of 

Julius & Simpson, LLP 

Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for appellant. 

SHILOH M. MACNALLY 

DANIEL E. ASHMORE of 

Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson 

 and Ashmore, LLP 

Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for appellees. 

* * * * 

ARGUED APRIL 27, 2011 

 OPINION FILED 09/14/11
- 1 - 

#25739 

SEVERSON, Justice 

[¶1.] Vera Martin lives in Belle Fourche, South Dakota, but worked at an 

American Colloid Company plant in Colony, Wyoming. After suffering a workrelated injury at the Colony plant, Martin received Wyoming workers’ 

compensation benefits. She then filed a claim for South Dakota workers’ 

compensation benefits. The South Dakota Department of Labor dismissed her 

claim for lack of jurisdiction, and the circuit court affirmed. We affirm. 

Background 

[¶2.] American Colloid is a Delaware corporation that conducts business in 

several states including Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, 

Alabama, and Nevada. American Colloid’s corporate headquarters is located in 

Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Primary management functions, including human 

resources, payroll, manufacturing, marketing, and information technology, are 

based in Illinois. 

[¶3.] American Colloid operates a large manufacturing plant in Colony, 

Wyoming, for the production of bentonite and lignite products. The Colony plant 

operates with separate plant management on site. Plant management in Wyoming 

handles customer service, accounts payable, orders, and receiving. The plant also 

has a separate cost center at the Wyoming plant, which tracks the plant’s revenue, 

expenses, and profit. Plant management in Wyoming interviews, hires, and fires 

employees. Although the corporate headquarters in Illinois issues paychecks to 

employees, plant management in Wyoming determines wages and verifies hours 

worked. American Colloid also operates a business office in Belle Fourche, South 
#25739 

 - 2 -

Dakota, which provides limited administrative assistance to plant management in 

Wyoming. 

[¶4.] Martin applied for employment with American Colloid in early 2006. 

She submitted her application to the Belle Fourche office. In February 2006, four 

plant supervisors interviewed Martin at the Colony plant. She was subsequently 

hired as a line worker at the Colony plant. Before her formal hiring, plant 

management required Martin to complete a physical and urinalysis at a Belle 

Fourche clinic in South Dakota. Martin exclusively worked at the Colony plant in 

Wyoming until she was terminated in February 2008. 

[¶5.] Martin sustained a work-related injury at the Colony plant in 

September 2006. The plant reported her injury to the Wyoming Workers’ Safety & 

Compensation Division (WWSCD). Shortly after her injury, Martin signed a 

Wyoming Report of Injury and received a pamphlet that explained her Wyoming 

workers’ compensation benefits. In an attempt to accommodate her light-duty 

restrictions, plant management allowed Martin to work in the lab at the plant. 

But plant management eventually terminated Martin because they could not 

provide her a permanent light-duty position in either Colony or Belle Fourche. 

[¶6.] American Colloid paid workers’ compensation premiums in Wyoming 

for Martin. Wyoming has a state-funded workers’ compensation system, and each 

quarter the employer must provide the WWSCD a list of employees and wages paid 

to those employees. The list that American Colloid provided to the WWSCD 

included Martin’s name and gross earnings. Martin received Wyoming workers’ 
#25739 

 - 3 -

compensation benefits totaling approximately $38,000. She later received a fivepercent permanent partial impairment rating. 

[¶7.] In February 2008, Martin filed a petition for hearing with the South 

Dakota Department of Labor. She alleged that her present physical condition 

prevented her return to her former employment and that she was entitled to oddlot disability benefits. American Colloid moved to dismiss her claim for lack of 

jurisdiction. Martin resisted the motion, arguing that the Department had 

jurisdiction because she resides in South Dakota. In January 2010, the 

Department dismissed Martin’s claim for South Dakota workers’ compensation 

benefits for lack of jurisdiction. Martin appealed to circuit court, which affirmed 

the Department’s decision. Martin appeals. 

Standard of Review 

[¶8.] SDCL 1-26-37 establishes the standard of review for administrative 

appeals. Under the statute, “the applicable standard of review ‘will vary 

depending on whether the issue is one of fact or one of law.’” Darling v. W. River 

Masonry, Inc., 2010 S.D. 4, ¶ 10, 777 N.W.2d 363, 366 (quoting Orth v. Stoebner & 

Permann Constr., Inc., 2006 S.D. 99, ¶ 27, 724 N.W.2d 586, 592). “The actions of 

the agency are judged by the clearly erroneous standard when the issue is a 

question of fact.” Id. (citing Orth, 2006 S.D. ¶ 27, 724 N.W.2d at 592). Because an 

issue regarding jurisdiction is a question of law, we review the Department’s 

decision to dismiss Martin’s claim for South Dakota workers’ compensation 

benefits de novo. See O’Toole v. Bd. of Tr. of S.D. Retirement Sys., 2002 S.D. 77, ¶ 
#25739 

 - 4 -

9, 648 N.W.2d 342, 345 (citing In re Estate of Galada, 1999 S.D. 21, ¶ 8, 589 

N.W.2d 221, 222). 

Analysis and Decision 

[¶9.] Martin has already received Wyoming workers’ compensation 

benefits. She now seeks an award of benefits in South Dakota as well. Under the 

unique system of workers’ compensation law, these “successive awards” are 

sometimes permitted. In holding that successive awards do not violate the Full 

Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States 

Supreme Court has stated: 

We therefore would hold that a State has no legitimate interest 

within the context of our federal system in preventing another 

State from granting a supplemental compensation award when 

that second State would have had the power to apply its 

work[ers’] compensation law in the first instance. The Full 

Faith and Credit Clause should not be construed to preclude 

successive work[ers’] compensation awards. 

Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 286, 100 S. Ct. 2647, 2663, 65 

L. Ed. 2d 757 (1980). See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1 (“Full Faith and Credit shall be 

given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every 

other State.”). Thus, Martin’s successive award of workers’ compensation benefits 

would be permissible under constitutional due process analysis if South Dakota 

has the power to apply its workers’ compensation law in the first instance. See id. 

[¶10.] In this administrative appeal, there is some confusion as to the use of 

the term “jurisdiction.” “‘Jurisdiction’ in regard to administrative agencies 

generally may be defined as power given by law to hear and decide controversies.” 
#25739 

 - 5 -

 

2 Am. Jur. 2d, Administrative Law § 274 (1994). This Court has described the 

jurisdiction of administrative agencies as follows: 

In administrative law the term jurisdiction has three aspects: (1) 

personal jurisdiction, referring to the agency’s authority over the 

parties and intervenors involved in the proceedings; (2) subject 

matter jurisdiction, referring to the agency’s power to hear and 

determine the causes of a general class of cases to which a 

particular case belongs; and (3) the agency’s scope of authority 

under statute. 

O’Toole, 2002 S.D. 77, ¶ 10, 648 N.W.2d at 345 (quoting 2 Am. Jur. 2d 

Administrative Law § 274 (1994)). This jurisdiction issue involves the scope of the 

Department’s authority under South Dakota statutes. In order to determine 

whether Martin was entitled to South Dakota benefits for this out-of-state injury in 

the first instance, we must look to the South Dakota statutes governing workers’ 

compensation. 

[¶11.] The Department and the circuit court both concluded that the 

Department lacked jurisdiction to hear this case, but used very different methods 

to reach this conclusion. While the Department applied a three-part test, the 

circuit court undertook an extensive examination of South Dakota’s workers’ 

compensation statutes. The Department followed the precedent of two prior 

Department decisions, which adopted a three-part test to determine jurisdiction 

under South Dakota workers’ compensation law.1 Meyers v. A.R.A. Trailblazers, 

 (continued . . .) 

1. Although both parties refer to the test that the Department applied as 

“Professor Larson’s test,” we find this term to be inaccurate. Professor 

Larson’s treatise does not explicitly lay out a three-part test to be used in 

determining jurisdiction. Rather, it explains: 

Recommendation No. 2.11 of the [1972 National Commission on 

State Workmen’s Compensation Laws] was that an employee or 
#25739 

 - 6 -

_______________________________ 

(. . . continued) 

Inc., HF No. 93, 1988/89, 1990 WL 506839, at *2 (S.D. Dep’t of Lab. April 18, 1990) 

(quoting 4 Larson, Workman’s Compensation Law, § 87.00 (1990)); Kruse v. Mercer 

Transp., HF No. 393, 1993/94, 1995 WL 798372, at *2 (S.D. Dep’t of Lab. Dec. 6, 

1995). According to the Department’s test, the Department has jurisdiction “if the 

place of injury, or the place of hiring, or the place of employment relation is within 

the state.” Meyers, 1990 WL 506839, at *2 (quoting 4 Larson, Workman’s 

Compensation Law, § 87.00 (1990)). 

[¶12.] This Court has held that ‘“proceedings under the Work[ers’] 

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.”’ 

Caldwell v. John Morrell & Co., 489 N.W.2d 353, 364 (S.D. 1992) (quoting 

Chittenden v. Jarvis, 68 S.D. 5, 8, 297 N.W. 787, 788 (1941)). The controlling issue 

in this case is whether Martin’s employment with American Colloid is within the 

jurisdiction of the Department based on the agency’s scope of authority under 

his or her survivor be given the choice of filing a workers’ 

compensation claim in the state where the injury or death 

occurred, or where the employment was principally localized, or 

where the employee was hired. Virtually all states are now in 

compliance with this recommendation. 

9 Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 143.01 

(Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed.). Thus, the test that the Department 

applied was actually based on a recommendation of the National 

Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws. It was not a 

unique creation of Professor Larson’s. It is important to note, 

however, that South Dakota has not followed the Commission’s advice 

by adopting the recommended statutes that deal with this issue. For 

purposes of simplicity, we will refer to this test as “the Department’s 

test.” 
#25739 

 - 7 -

statute. Thus, we must look to the South Dakota’s workers’ compensation statutes 

to determine the scope of the Department’s authority. The Department’s test may 

be followed by a majority of states, but most have adopted it by statute. 

[¶13.] The circuit court was correct in its initial approach of looking to South 

Dakota’s workers’ compensation statutes to determine the Department’s 

jurisdiction. But we disagree with its conclusion that Title 62, which governs 

workers’ compensation in South Dakota, provides a clear answer to the 

jurisdictional question in this case. The circuit court applied SDCL 62-3-3 and the 

statutes referenced therein, and concluded that, because American Colloid did not 

carry workers’ compensation insurance for Martin in South Dakota, it was not 

subject to the South Dakota workers’ compensation statutes. We disagree with 

this interpretation. An employer does not escape the provisions of Title 62 by 

choosing not to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Rather, 

by doing so, it forfeits the protections of limited liability that Title 62 provides, and 

is subject to an action at law and potentially to double damages. SDCL 62-3-11. 

The uninsured employee “may elect to proceed against the employer in any action 

at law to recover damages for personal injury or death; or may elect to proceed 

against the employer in circuit court under the provisions of [Title 62], as if the 

employer had [been insured].” Id. Therefore, even if American Colloid did not 

have South Dakota workers’ compensation insurance for Martin, it may still be 

subject to the provisions of Title 62. 

[¶14.] SDCL 62-3-3 provides: 

Every employer and employee shall be presumed to have 

accepted the provisions of this title, and shall be thereby bound, 
#25739 

 - 8 -

 

whether injury or death resulting from such injury occurs 

within this state or elsewhere, except as provided by §§ 62-3-4 to 

62-3-5.1, inclusive. 

This statute suggests that the Legislature intended Title 62 to apply to at least 

some injuries that occur in another state, but the Title offers little further guidance 

on the scope of the Department’s authority. Thus, while many other states have 

addressed this issue by statute, we are left to use statutory interpretation. When 

determining the presence or absence of coverage for injuries occurring out of state, 

of primary importance is a determination as to the location of the employment 

relationship. See Nashko v. Standard Water Proofing Co., 149 N.E.2d 859, 861 

(N.Y. Ct. App. 1958). This is “an approach whereby certain factors tending to show 

substantial connection with this [s]tate are looked for in the factual patterns of 

each individual case.”2 Id. 

[¶15.] The Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (1971) is helpful in 

determining what constitutes a substantial connection with the employment 

relationship. Section 181 provides: 

A State of the United States may consistently with the 

requirements of due process award relief to a person under its 

work[ers’] compensation statute, if 

 (a) the person is injured in the State, or 

 (b) the employment is principally located in the State, or 

2. While this approach is similar to the “most significant relationship” test 

used in conflict of laws cases, it is not identical. See Chambers v. Dakotah 

Charter, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 63, 67 (S.D. 1992). It is conceivable that both 

South Dakota and another state could have a substantial connection to the 

employment relationship, and both could therefore be considered the 

location of the employment relationship. In such a case, the Department 

would have jurisdiction even if the other state had awarded benefits under 

its workers’ compensation laws.
#25739 

 - 9 -

 

(c) the employer supervised the employee’s activities 

from a place of business in the State, or 

(d) the State is that of most significant relationship to 

the contract of employment with respect to the issue of 

work[ers’] compensation under the rules of §§ 187-188 

and 196, or 

(e) the parties have agreed in the contract of employment 

or otherwise that their rights should be determined 

under the work[ers’] compensation act of the State, or 

(f) the State has some other reasonable relationship to 

the occurrence, the parties and the employment. 

Despite the Restatement’s use of the term “or” after each subsection, we do not 

suggest that any one of these factors is necessarily sufficient on its own to create a 

substantial connection to the employment relationship. Whereas the Restatement 

provides a broad overview of what is constitutionally permissible, our task is to 

determine the scope of the Department’s authority under South Dakota law. This 

determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, by evaluating all of the 

factors surrounding the employment relationship. Still, the factors outlined in the 

Restatement remain a useful reference for making this determination.3

3. Professor Larson’s treatise provides a similar list of factors: 

There are six grounds on which the applicability of a particular 

compensation act has been asserted; they are that the local state 

is the 

 (1) Place where the injury occurred; 

 (2) Place of making the contract; 

 (3) Place where the employment relation exists or is 

carried out; 

 (4) Place where the industry is localized; 

 (5) Place where the employee resides; or 

(6) Place whose statute the parties expressly adopted by 

contract. 

Larson, supra § 142.01.
#25739 

 - 10 -

[¶16.] The only connection between South Dakota and the employment 

relationship at issue in this case is that Martin was a South Dakota resident 

throughout her employment with American Colloid. While this factor does, to some 

extent, strengthen the connection between South Dakota and the employment 

relationship, it is not alone sufficient to create the substantial connection necessary 

to conclude that South Dakota is the place of the employment relationship. 

Comment a. to the Restatement states, “No case is known . . . where the State of an 

employee’s domicile, which had no other relationship to the parties or to the 

employment, has awarded the employee relief under its work[ers’[ compensation 

statute.” Id. Other courts have found jurisdiction based on the state of the 

employee’s residence, but generally together with other connections between the 

state and the employment relationship. See Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 330 

U.S. 469, 67 S. Ct. 801, 91 L. Ed. 1028 (1947) (In addition to being a resident of the 

District of Columbia, employee was hired in the District and worked there for 

approximately six years, and employer was also based in the District); Magnolia 

Petroleum Co. v. Hunt, 320 U.S. 430, 64 S. Ct. 208, 88 L. Ed. 149 (1943) (Although 

injury occurred in Texas, employee was resident of Louisiana and was primarily 

employed in Louisiana); Alaska Packers Ass’n. v. Indus. Acc. Com’n, 294 U.S. 532, 

55 S. Ct. 518, 79 L. Ed. 1044 (1935) (Employee was resident of California and 

contract of employment was made in California). None of those other connections 

are present in this case. Martin was hired in Wyoming, worked exclusively in 

Wyoming, and was injured in Wyoming. There is no connection to South Dakota 

aside from Martin’s residence. Therefore, we conclude that South Dakota is not 
#25739 

 - 11 -

the place of the employment relationship and that the Department does not have 

jurisdiction over this matter. 

[¶17.] Affirmed. 

[¶18.] KONENKAMP and ZINTER, Justices, concur, MEIERHENRY and 

MILLER, Retired Justices, concur. 

[¶19.] MILLER, Retired Justice, sitting for GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, 

disqualified. 

[¶20.] WILBUR, Justice, not having been a member of the Court at the time 

this action was submitted to the Court, did not participate.