Opinion ID: 2028102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Memorandum was final as to permanent partial disability benefits?

Text: Employer and Insurer claim that the Memorandum precludes any further involvement by Department as to permanent partial disability benefits. The Memorandum provides that Welch is not waiving the right to pursue benefits other than permanent partial disability[.] The Memorandum was found to be final as to permanent partial disability benefits. A stipulation between insurer and employee which is filed and approved by Department may have the effect of a final determination. Larsen v. Sioux Falls School Dist. No. 49-5, 509 N.W.2d 703, 705 (S.D. 1993); Whitney v. AGSCO Dakota, 453 N.W.2d 847, 850 (S.D.1990) (citation omitted). In construing Department's Form 111, which was used for Welch's Memorandum, Larsen stated: [W]orker's compensation awards, whether by agreement of the parties or following an adjudication, are res judicata as to all matters considered unless the [D]epartment has reserved continuing jurisdiction over one or more questions.... A statutory exception to the finality rule is found in SDCL 62-7-33 which gives the Department continuing jurisdiction to adjust payments when there is a physical change in the employee's condition from that of the last award. 509 N.W.2d at 706-07 (citations omitted). Welch's Memorandum (Form 111) does not contain language which le[aves] open a pending issue. Whitney, 453 N.W.2d at 850. All matters considered in the Memorandum including the nature and extent of disability are res judicata. [2] Id. Welch must prove a material and substantial physical change for Department to change permanent partial disability benefits. Id. at 852 (citation omitted). Therefore, the issue is whether Welch proved the necessary change of condition.