 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughn v. John Morrell & Co.3/1/2000
er version of the facts than prior testimony and 'cannot now claim a material issue of fact which assumes a conclusion contrary to own testimony.'" Loewen, 1997 SD 2, , 557 NW2d at 768 (quotations omitted).
[ ] Furthermore, estoppel, as a "good cause" excuse, is not justified in this case. Estoppel is typically reserved for cases where the employer makes "assurances, misrepresentations, negligen , or even deliberate deceptions." Larson's Workers' Compensation Laws ยง 78.45. The most common type of an estoppel case generally involves a claimant who:
contends that he was lulled into a sense of security by statements of employer or carrier representatives that ' he will be taken care of' or that h claim has been filed for h or that a claim will not be necessary because he would be paid compensation benefits in any event. Id.
Because this case does not involve any of the above allegations, the imposition of estoppel against Morrell is not justified.
[ ] Vaughn has the burden of proving all facts essential to compensation. She has not met her burden of proving timely notice, actual knowledge or good cause for not giving timely notice.
[ ] We reverse and remand to the circuit court to reinstate the decision of DOL.
[ ] MILLER, Chief Justice, and AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|