Court Opinion

ID: 9668147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:03:47.431858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:43.292145
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(specially concurring).
SDCL 62-7-6 provides statutory guidance for a lump-sum distribution or computation of unpaid weekly compensation benefits which may be awarded. In fact, it is the only statutory guidance.
A simple criteria is expressed therein, namely what is “in the best interests of the employee?” (Emphasis supplied mine.) Although I generally agree with the legal rationale and result in this case, due to the request for a cash advance for travel, it strikes me that the majority opinion is vented toward a financial analysis. For example, can it be said the “best interests of the employee” are, as the majority expresses, that “... lump sum payments must be made in accordance with the goal of preserving future wage replacement benefits?” (Emphasis supplied mine.) If life were all a mechanical application of cold facts and theory, I could agree. But life is not that way. Notice the words of the statute underlined above; then compare it with the holding (also underlined above). Quite different. “Best interests of the employee” has to mean more than “preserving future wage replacement.”
Based upon the words “in the best interests of the employee” as SDCL 62-7-6 states, there has to be some discretion within the award of a lump sum distribution. Therefore, this Court should adopt the abuse of discretion test under the terms of the statute. By extension of reason, the scope of review should be: Was the lump sum award and the distribution thereof an abuse of discretion? It would not be unreasonable to consider the needs of the employee. In fact, the needs of the employee should prevail. Essentially, both financial and personal considerations should be considered. This would include the disabled worker’s family circumstances, living arrangements, and responsibilities to his or her dependents. Dameron v. Neumann Bros., Inc., 339 N.W.2d 160 (Iowa 1983). See also Diamond v. Parsons Company, 129 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa 1964). Other than these considerations, Iowa’s highest court has adopted three additional factors in determining the best interests of the claimant: (1) The worker’s age, education, mental and physical condition, and actual life expectancy (as contrasted with information provided by actuarial tables); (2) The worker’s financial condition, including all sources of income, debts and living expenses; and (3) The reasonableness of the worker’s plan for reinvesting the lump sum proceeds and the worker’s ability to manage invested funds or arrange for management by others. The latter could be, as an example, by a trustee or conservator. Certainly, the De-*582parturient of Labor and the court system owe a duty to help the disabled worker to the extent that a lump sum settlement is not spent foolishly or wasted so that the settlement fails to provide the wage-substitute intended by the worker’s compensation law.
As I understand the facts, this disabled worker wants to take her entire family to Korea because her mother is over 80 years of age and not in good health. Mrs. Thomas fears that her mother will pass away without ever seeing her or the grandchildren. Thomas’ extended family, consisting of her mother, two brothers, sister, and their families live in Korea. Thomas wants to take her husband, two foster children (who resided in her home for five months) and her two biologic children to Korea for a visit. Broken down, this would be: $5,500 airfare for the family; $2,770 airfare for the foster children; $4,000 living expense while in Korea; $1,800 rent on her home in Rapid City, South Dakota; $1,350 to pay various monthly payments while in Korea; $1,000 for insurance on home and automobiles; $1,000 to pay off a bad debt (an unscheduled pre-bankruptcy debt) and $500 to pay for a cordless telephone. Custer State Hospital did not appeal from the last two advances and Judge Zinter permitted these payments.
The requested cash advances approximate one year’s family income for the Thomas family. So, this is a costly visit. All of the monthly family expenses were itemized by the trial court and I shall not bore the reader with all of these items. Needless to say, it is very obvious that the Thomas family could not have afforded the trip without the cash advance. In my opinion, Judge Zinter did not abuse his discretion because Mrs. Thomas simply went too far in asking for travel and expenses to Korea of $17,822.19. An abuse of discretion refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. Cody v. Edward D. Jones, 502 N.W.2d 558 (S.D.1993); Herndon v. Herndon, 305 N.W.2d 917 (S.D.1981). Such discretion occurs only if no “judicial mind in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion.” Jensen v. Weyrens, 474 N.W.2d 261 (S.D.1991); Matter of Estate of Pejsa, 459 N.W.2d 243 (S.D.1990). When you consider the total award, the trip gobbles up a great part of it. In my opinion, the request was excessive; it would take too much money away from the corpus of the settlement. Certainly, the Department of Labor and the circuit court owe a duty to preserve the principal so that this Korean national, who now lives in our country, will not become a charge to the people of this state.
Under the majority opinion, a “peace of mind factor” could be considered (inferentially, in future decisions by this Court) but should not be a vital factor as our Brothers in Arizona decided. See Prigosin v. Industrial Commission, 113 Ariz. 87, 546 P.2d 823 (1976). I agree. But I do not, for one moment, agree that the “emotional well-being” of a disabled worker should be “rejected” as the majority opinion holds. Nor would I shunt aside the circumstance, mandated by SDCL 62-7-6(1) of “exceptional financial need.” The majority opinion is too restrictive. Compare Polich v. Whalen’s O.K. Tire Warehouse, 194 Mont. 167, 634 P.2d 1162 (1981), wherein the Supreme Court of Montana converted a disabled worker’s installment payments to a lump-sum which permitted the disabled worker to move to a more hospitable climate. Compare also D & M Contractors, Inc. v. Forlano, 283 A.2d 843 (Del.Super.1971), wherein the Superior Court of Delaware permitted an award from the weekly benefits so as the disabled worker could return to his home country of Argentina. Factual scenarios could arise in the future which would cry out for a cash award, from the lump-sum settlement, but the language of our decision today boxes in disabled workers who need immediate help.
From the earliest times in jurisprudence, it is obvious that appellate tribunals have been empowered to reverse for errors of law and to announce the rules which are to be applied in the future. By doing so, we on the appellate level hopefully ensure predictable uniformity in the rules applied by the lower courts. Additionally, within that framework of thought, the appellate court should seek justice in the individual case. As I review the majority opinion, in easting aside sister *583states’ objective (or positive) standards, our Court develops none of its own. Perhaps we have done justice in the ease, but what rules have we announced to be applied in the future? Unable to outright concur in the STANDARD OF REVIEW (pabulum) which anchors upon immaterial citations, I specially concur. As the years roll by, Thomas will be a citational arrow in the insurers’ quiver to retain the funds.