Enger v. FMC’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Permann v. South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division · Sopko v. C & R Transfer Co., Inc. · Enger v. FMC · Wulff v. Swanson · Thomas v. Custer State Hospital
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since compensation is a segment of a total income insurance system, it ordinarily does its share of the job only if it can be depended on to supply periodic income benefits replacing a portion of lost earnings. If a ... totally disabled worker gives up these reliable periodic payments in exchange for a large sum of cash immediately in hand, experience has shown that in many cases the lump sum is soon dissipated and the [worker] is right back where [she] would have been if [workers’] compensation had never existed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Age, education, mental and physical condition, and actual life expectancy. 2. Family circumstances, living arrangements, and responsibilities to dependents. 3. Financial condition, including all sources of income, debts and living expenses. 4. Reasonableness of plan for investing the lump sum proceeds and ability to manage invested funds or arrangement for management by others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In regard to this mixed factual and legal issue, it is important to note that the general rule in South Dakota does not favor lump sum awards. As stated by this Court, “the allowance of a lump-sum award is the exception and not the general rule.” Wulff v. Swanson, 69 S.D. 539, 543 , 12 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1944). Larson explains the rationale behind this policy: Since compensation is a segment of a total income insurance system, it ordinarily does its share of the job only if it can be depended on to supply periodic income benefits replacing a portion of lost earnings. If a ... disabled worker gives up these reliable periodic payments in exchange for a large sum of cash immediately in hand, experience has shown that in many cases the lump sum is soon dissipated and the workman is right back where he would have been if workmen’s compensation had never existed. 8 Larson’s Worker’s Compensation Law, § 82.71 (1999). Despite this general rule against lump sum awards, Larson points out that the remedy can work in certain circumstances: The only solution lies in conscientious administration, with unrelenting insistence that lump-summing be restricted to those exceptional cases in which it can be demonstrated that the purpose of the Act will best be served by a lump sum award.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.