author: KONENKAMP, Justice. MEIERHENRY, Justice

text:
    2008 SD 76
    Lorraine E. KIRKSEY, f/k/a Lorraine E. Bach, and Lucille E. Ruby, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Dorothy E. GROHMANN and Eileen C. Randell, Defendants and Appellees.
    No. 24600.
    Supreme Court of South Dakota.
    Argued on Jan. 9, 2008.
    Decided July 30, 2008.
    Dwight A. Gubbrud of Bennett, Main & Gubbrud, P.C., Belle Fourche, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.
    Ronda Miller, Belle Fourche, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appel-lees.
   KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] Four sisters inherited equal ownership in their family’s land. They formed a limited liability company, conveying their property interests to the company in exchange for equal ownership in the LLC. One sister lives on the land and manages the LLC, and another sister leases the land for livestock grazing. Two other sisters live a great distance from the land. These sisters, who once agreed, are now divided. They speak only through their lawyers. Two sought to terminate the lease and dissolve the LLC; the other two opposed it. A majority vote is required, but the sisters are deadlocked. Judicial dissolution was sought and the circuit court granted summary judgment against it. On appeal, we conclude that it is not reasonably practicable for the company to continue and the economic purpose of the LLC is being unreasonably frustrated. We reverse and remand for an order of judicial dissolution.

Background

[¶ 2.] On July 10, 2001, Grace Kirksey died. She had four daughters: Lucille Ruby, Lorraine Kirksey, Dorothy Groh-mann, and Eileen Randell. Grace left her four daughters equal ownership interest in 2,769 acres of land in Butte County, South Dakota, and 401 acres in Crook County, Wyoming. These tracts composing the Kirksey land have been in the family for over 100 years. Grohmann lives on and manages this land, and Randell lives in Rapid City, South Dakota. Kirksey lives in California, and Ruby lives in Colorado.

[¶ 3.] On October 7, 2002, the four daughters formed a limited liability company, Kirksey Family Ranch, LLC, to hold title to the land. Each sister conveyed her one-quarter interest in the property to the LLC in exchange for a 25% ownership in the company. Grohmann would serve as the manager. They formed the LLC (1) to avoid paying certain estate taxes by employing a special use valuation, (2) to keep the land in the family, and (3) to keep ownership interest in the real property with the sisters and not their spouses.

[¶ 4.] At the time of their mother’s death, the land was valued at $550,000. With the special use valuation, it was reported to be valued at $215,000. To obtain the benefit of this valuation certain family members were required, among other things, to retain ownership in the land for ten years, and it was to be used for agricultural purposes. The eldest sister, Grohmann, had lived on the Kirksey land as a hired hand before their mother’s death. Grohmann, Kirksey, and Randell each owned grazing livestock on the land. To continue the agricultural operation, the sisters decided that the LLC would lease the land to Grohmann, Kirksey, and Randell.

[¶ 5.] A lease agreement was executed in October 2002, effective September 1, 2002. It provided for an initial term of five years, to be automatically renewed for another year unless either party gave written notice of intent to terminate within ninety days before the termination of the lease. The annual rental rate was set at $14,263.20. The LLC, as the landlord, was responsible for all the real estate taxes and insurance.

[¶ 6.] Not long after the formation of the LLC, relations deteriorated. According to Kirksey, Grohmann and Randell “failed or refused to share information” with her on the operation of the ranch, on which she owned livestock as a tenant to the lease. She claimed that she wrote Grohmann “dozens of pages of letters” to resolve disagreements and requested information about livestock and other issues. She insisted that Grohmann did not provide the requested information and, if she did, it was either inaccurate or unreliable. Also, according to Kirksey, Grohmann and Randell subleased 401 acres of the land without notice to the LLC, as required by the lease agreement.

[¶ 7.] Grohmann, on the other hand, said that she always gave Kirksey necessary information. She further contended that the LLC was given notice of the sublease because the members of the LLC, the sisters, were aware of the sublease arrangement when Grohmann initially divided up the sublease payments equally and attempted to share them with all the LLC members. Grohmann said that Kirksey accepted the payment, but Ruby did not as she was not a tenant to the lease.

[¶ 8.] Because of her continued frustrations with Grohmann and Randell, Kirksey sold them her interest in the livestock in 2008. Grohmann and Randell were then the only tenants on the lease agreement. This, however, did not end the contentious relationship between the sisters. Kirksey and Ruby hired a real estate agent to value the Kirksey land. It was estimated to be worth in excess of $3.2 million. Kirksey and Ruby then sought to terminate the lease agreement, dissolve the LLC, and partition the land.

[¶ 9.] A meeting of the LLC was held on May 30, 2006. Ruby moved and Kirk-sey seconded a motion to terminate the lease agreement. Grohmann and Randell opposed, and the motion failed. Thereafter, Ruby moved and Kirksey seconded a motion to dissolve the LLC. This motion also failed when Grohmann and Randell opposed. All major actions taken by the LLC required a majority vote of its members. Because Grohmann and Randell had no desire to terminate the lease or dissolve the LLC, the parties remained deadlocked.

[¶ 10.] Kirksey and Ruby petitioned the circuit court for relief. Citing SDCL 47-34A-801, Kirksey and Ruby requested that the court dissolve the LLC because its economic purpose was unreasonably frustrated and it was not reasonably practicable to carry on the company’s business in conformity with the articles of organization and the operating agreement. According to Kirksey, the strained relationship between the sisters made it impossible for any major decision making. Moreover, Kirksey claimed that “Groh-mann and Randell have a personal financial interest in continuing the lease agreement and preventing dissolution of the LLC,” all to her and Ruby’s detriment.

[¶ 11.] On cross motions for summary judgment, the circuit court denied Kirksey and Ruby’s petition and granted Groh-mann and Randell’s motion for summary judgment. Kirksey and Ruby appeal, asserting that the court erred when it granted summary judgment against judicial dissolution of the LLC.

Analysis and Decision

[¶ 12.] Summary judgment is proper when the law is correctly applied and there are no genuine issues of material fact. Rush v. U.S. Bancorp Equip. Fin., Inc., 2007 SD 119, ¶ 7, 742 N.W.2d 266, 268 (quoting Heib v. Lekrkamp, 2005 SD 98, ¶ 19, 704 N.W.2d 875, 882 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c); Keystone Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. Eastep, 2004 SD 28, ¶ 8, 676 N.W.2d 842, 846)). Several facts are undisputed. Kirksey Family Ranch, LLC is a family enterprise, created to keep title to land held in the family for over a century and to maintain ranching operations. Each sister invested in the company her one-quarter interest in the land with the understanding that she would have an equal say in the company’s operations and equal ownership in its assets. When the sisters formed the LLC, they provided no way to break a tie vote between them and no way to end a deadlock. Today, the sisters are divided and speak only through their legal counsel. There being no avenue for relief in the operating agreement, two sisters ask the courts to intervene.

[1113.] Through SDCL 47-34A-801, the. Legislature provided courts with the limited power to order dissolution of an LLC if certain statutory standards are met. Under SDCL 47-34A-801(a)(4)(i) and SDCL 47-34A-801(a)(4)(iii), a court may judicially dissolve an LLC if “the economic purpose of the company is likely to be unreasonably frustrated” or “it is not otherwise reasonably practicable to carry on the company’s business in conformity with the articles of organization and the operating agreement[J”

[¶ 14.] How these statutory standards may be satisfied has not yet been detailed by this Court. A consistent view in other jurisdictions is that a limited liability company is governed by its articles of organization and operating agreement. See Horning v. Horning Const., LLC, 12 Misc.3d 402, 816 N.Y.S.2d 877, 881 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2006); Histone Charleston Holdings, LLC v. Mallon, 365 S.C. 524, 617 S.E.2d 388, 393 (S.C.Ct.App.2005); Dunbar Group, LLC v. Tignor, 267 Va. 361, 593 S.E.2d 216, 219 (2004). Beyond this, however, there is no prevailing interpretation of the terms “not reasonably practicable” and “economic purpose ... unreasonably frustrated” in relation to dissolution of limited liability companies. See SDCL 47-34A-801.

[¶ 15.] Nevertheless, the cases interpreting language similar to our statutory terminology, whether involving a partnership or a limited liability company, are instructive. In defining what it means for it to “not be reasonably practicable” for a company to continue, one court consulted a dictionary to apply a plain and ordinary meaning. Taki v. Hami, 2001 WL 672399 (Mich.Ct.App.) (unpublished) (dissolution of a partnership). The Taki court held that “ ‘reasonably practicable’ may properly be defined as capable of being done logically and in a reasonable, feasible manner.” Id. at 3. Another court emphasized that “[t]he standard set forth by the Legislature is one of reasonable practicability, not impossibility.” PC Tower Ctr., Inc. v. Tower Ctr. Dev. Assoc., L.P., 1989 WL 63901, 6 (Del.Ch.) (unpublished) (dissolution of a partnership). Under this view, the standard does not require that the purpose of the company, as set out in the operating agreement, be completely frustrated to warrant judicial dissolution. Rather, the term “reasonably practicable” signifies a company’s ability to continue the purpose identified in the operating agreement.

[¶ 16.] One approach, taken by several courts, is to examine the circumstances in light of the company’s purpose and then determine if it is reasonably practicable to continue the business. Under this test, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s order dissolving a limited liability company. Dunbar Group, LLC, 593 S.E.2d at 219. According to the Dunbar court, only when a business cannot continue “in accord with its articles of incorporation and any operating agreement” can dissolution be ordered. Despite one member of a two-member company being expelled, the court held that the company could continue, and, therefore, dissolution was not warranted.

[¶ 17.] The Louisiana Court of Appeals similarly examined a company’s operating agreement to determine if it was reasonably practicable for the business to continue. Weinmann v. Duhon, 818 So.2d 206, 208-09 (La.Ct.App.2002). The members of the company had no desire to continue their business relationship and began making side agreements that, in the court’s view, made continued operation of the company not reasonably practicable. Id. at 209.

[¶ 18.] A Massachusetts Superior Court required that “specific provisions of the partnership agreement” be shown to establish “impracticability to carry on the business in conformity with the partnership agreement.” Houser v. River Loft Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 1999 WL 33594570, 2 (Mass.Sup.Ct.) (unpublished) (dissolution of a partnership). In Houser, the plaintiff alleged that the members engaged in self dealing. The court, nonetheless, found that the company operated for its stated purpose and denied dissolution.

[¶ 19.] Finally, in Spires v. Casterline, a New York court engaged in a detailed analysis of the company’s articles of organization and operating agreement. 4 Misc.3d 428, 778 N.Y.S.2d 259, 263 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2004). It found no basis to dissolve the company based on the terms of the articles of organization. Id. at 264. However, because the operating agreement mandated that dissolution occur before withdrawal of a member, and a member withdrew pre-dissolution, the court ordered that the company be judicially dissolved. Id. at 266-67.

[¶ 20.] Another consideration, expressed by .two courts, is the financial state of the company. In Klein v. 599 Eleventh Ave. Co. LLC, the court dismissed a petition for judicial dissolution because the plaintiff “failed to articulate facts establishing why it was not reasonably practicable for [the company] to continue to carry on its business [and] failed to demonstrate that [the company] is failing financially[J” 2006 WL 3849059, 4 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.) (unpublished). Similarly, a Delaware court declined to order dissolution because the company was serving its stated purpose from the operating agreement and producing returns for its investors. Cincinnati Bell Cellular Sys. Co. v. Ameritech Mobile Phone Serv. of Cincinnati, Inc., 1996 WL 506906 (Del.Ch.Ct.) (unpublished) (regarding a partnership).

[¶ 21.] Two courts have held that a strict standard applies to judicial dissolutions. In Dunbar Group, LLC, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a strict standard reflects “legislative deference to the parties’ contractual agreement to form and operate a limited liability company.” 593 S.E.2d at 219. Also holding to an exacting standard, the court in Homing noted that this strictness might leave some members at the mercy of other members, but a company cannot be dissolved as long as it is thriving. 816 N.Y.S.2d at 883.

[¶ 22.] Yet another approach to interpreting the statutory language is to analogize dissolution of a limited liability company to dissolution of a corporation or partnership. One such instance occurred in Haley v. Talcott, 864 A.2d 86, 94 (Del.Ch.2004). The court used its corporate dissolution law and required three prerequisites to judicial dissolution of a limited liability company. According to the Haley court, if (1) the company had “two 50% stockholders,” who (2) “engaged in a joint venture,” and (3) were “unable to agree upon whether to discontinue the business or how to dispose of its assets,” judicial dissolution was warranted.

[¶ 23.] Also in Delaware, a chancery court distinguished Haley and instead compared the statutory language to that of a limited partnership dissolution. In re Silver Leaf, 2005 WL 2045641, 10 (Del.Ch.Ct.) (unpublished). The court ordered dissolution, finding that the sole asset of the company no longer existed, and therefore, continued operation of the company was not reasonably practicable. The court also took into account that the members were deadlocked and the operating agreement provided no means to end the deadlock. Id. at 11.

[¶24.] Another court, in dicta, noted that dissolution might be warranted when “ ‘it clearly appears that the business for which the partnership was formed is impracticable, or cannot be carried on except at a loss,’ ” and “where ‘all confidence between the parties has been destroyed so that they cannot proceed together in prosecuting the business for which it was formed.’ ” Percontino v. Camporeale, 2005 WL 730234, 3 (N.J.Sup.Ct.) (unpublished).

[¶ 25.] Here, the operating agreement for the Kirksey Family Ranch, LLC states:

The purpose for which this organization is created is to engage in a general livestock and ranching business; to feed, range, graze, herd, control, brand, care for, purchase, market and sell livestock of every kind, both on its own account and as an agent for other persons, organizations or corporations; to buy, lease, cultivate, manage, operate and sell ranch properties and products therefrom both on its own account and as an agent for other persons, organizations or corporations; and, take, buy, exchange, lease or manage and develop such property and interests in any manner that may be necessary, useful or advantageous for the purposes of this organization.

(Emphasis added). From this language, it is clear that the intended business was a “livestock and ranching” operation.

[¶ 26.] There is no dispute that the ranching and livestock operation, as a business, can continue despite the sisters’ dissension. However, the question is whether it is reasonably practicable for the company to continue in accordance with the operating agreement. The sole asset of the company is the Kirksey land. This land is currently leased to only two sisters. Kirksey and Ruby contend that the lease is no longer beneficial to the company. The rental rate was set when the land was worth considerably less, and the company, no matter the extent of profits, is required to pay the taxes and insurance. Groh-mann and Randell, however, assert that Kirksey and Ruby were aware of the nominal profit margin when the company was formed and that nothing has changed to make it impracticable for the company to continue.

[¶ 27.] The sisters created their company with the understanding that they would have relatively equal say in its overall management and operation. Although each sister has an equal vote, there no longer exists equality in the decision making. Grohmann and Randell have all the power with no reason to change the terms of a lease extremely favorable to them. Leaving two sisters, half the owners, with all the power in the operation of the company cannot be a reasonable and practicable operation of a business. Moreover, their deadlock certainly impedes the continued function of the business in conformity with its operating agreement. No procedure exists in the company’s documentation to break a tie vote and protect the company in the event of changed conditions. As long as the company remains in control of, and favorable only to, half its members, it cannot be said to be reasonably practicable for it to continue in accord with its operating agreement.

[¶ 28.] Another statutory standard Kirksey and Ruby rely on is found in SDCL 47-34A-801(a)(4)(i): “[t]he economic purpose of the company is likely to be unreasonably frustrated.” What it means for the economic purpose of a company to be unreasonably frustrated has not been clearly delineated. There are few cases on the subject. Two decisions have ordered judicial dissolution when extreme dissension between the members was present. Navarro v. Perron, 122 Cal.App.4th 797, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 198, 200-01 (2004) (dissolution of a partnership); Pankratz Farms, Inc. v. Pankratz, 322 Mont. 133, 95 P.3d 671 (2004) (dissolution of a partnership). However, those cases had other factors that led the court to dissolve the companies. Navarro, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d at 200-01 (in addition to the dissension the parties filed multiple lawsuits and restraining orders); Pankratz, 95 P.3d at 680-81 (the business of the partnership was effectively transferred).

[¶ 29.] Here, we have two members of an LLC that hold all the power, with the other two having no power to influence the company’s direction. We recognize that forced dissolution is a drastic remedy and may produce financial repercussions for the sisters, but how can one reasonably conclude that the economic purpose of this company is not reasonably frustrated? The members cannot communicate regarding the LLC except through legal counsel. The company remains static, serving the interests of only half its owners. They neither trust nor cooperate with each other. The sisters formed their company contemplating equal ownership and management, yet only an impenetrable deadlock prevails.

[¶ 30.] We conclude that the economic purpose of the Kirksey Family Ranch, LLC is being unreasonably frustrated, and it is not reasonably practicable to carry on the LLC’s business in conformity with its articles of organization and operating agreement. The circuit court erred when it granted Grohmann and Randell summary judgment. We remand for an order of judicial dissolution and winding up of the company’s business under SDCL 47-34A-806.

[¶ 31.] Reversed and remanded.

[¶ 32.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS and ZINTER, Justices, concur.

[IT 33.] MEIERHENRY, Justice, concurs with a writing.

MEIERHENRY, Justice

(concurring).

[¶ 34.] I agree that under the circumstances of this case, the LLC should be dissolved. Neither the legislation nor the LLC agreement provided a procedure or remedy in the event of deadlock. Without such a provision, the LLC is at a stalemate; and the court is left with few alternatives. As Justice Konenkamp points out, other courts have faced this same issue with varying results depending on the circumstances of each case. The undisputed facts of this case sufficiently meet the statutory requirements for dissolution in SDCL 47-34A-801(a)(4)(i) or (iii).

      . The court found that “it was not possible to complete the business of the partnership in a logical, reasonable and feasible manner.'' Taki, 2001 WL 672399, at 3. The members had not spoken to each other in years and filed three lawsuits against each other. There were also allegations of violence and attempted expulsion.

      . The purpose of the company was to use the property for profit and as an investment. PC Tower Ctr., Inc., 1989 WL 63901, at 5. Because the company was operating at a considerable loss and the prospect of future profits did not exist, the court found that it was not reasonably practicable for the company to continue. Id. at 6.

      .One member asserted that " 'serious differences of opinion as to company management have arisen between the members and managers’ ... and that the company was 'deadlocked' in its ability to conduct its business affairs....” Dunbar Group, LLC, 593 S.E.2d at 218. A court order had been entered finding that one member commingled the company’s funds. Nevertheless, the court concluded that it was reasonably practicable for the company to continue and denied dissolution. Id. at 219.

      . The plaintiff sought dissolution asserting “that the general partners have carried out a systematic course of self-dealing in which they refuse to liquidate the partnership in accordance with its investment objectives.” Houser, 1999 WL 33594570, at 2. The court held that the partnership was meeting its stated purpose, and therefore, denied dissolution.

      . A Massachusetts Superior Court ordered dissolution of an LLC when the company was “not able to function in the manner intended and there is a clear and total deadlock between the sole two manager members thereof.” Rapoza v. Talamo, 2006 WL 3292632, 4 (Mass.Super.Ct.) (unpublished). The company in Rapoza, however, did not have an operating agreement and the members had ceased attempting to operate their businesses. Id.

      . The court ordered judicial dissolution. Haley, 864 A.2d at 94-95. Although "the LLC can and does continue to function for its intended purpose and in conformity with the agreement," the court held that "this operation is purely a residual, inertial status quo that just happens to exclusively benefit one of the 50% members....” Id. at 96. The parties could not function together and could not decide what to do with the LLC’s assets or take any important actions that required a majority vote. Dissolution was further warranted because without relief the dissociated member would still be personally liable on the company’s mortgage.

      . Dissolution was not warranted in this case because the court ordered an alternative form of relief. Percontino, 2005 WL 730234, at 4.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: KONENKAMP, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    2008 SD 75
    Corrinna Kay WALDNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Beth Ann BERGLUND, Defendant and Appellee.
    Nos. 24762, 24775.
    Supreme Court of South Dakota.
    Considered on Briefs May 19, 2008.
    Decided July 30, 2008.

      Ronald C. Aho, Brookings, South Dakota, Attorney for plaintiff and appellant.
    Mark D. O’Leary, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for defendant and appel-lee.
   KONENKAMP, Justice.

[¶ 1.] In this automobile accident case, plaintiff presented evidence at trial of her past and projected medical expenses, her pain and suffering, and her whole-person impairment. At the close of the jury trial, the circuit court granted a directed verdict on the issue of defendant’s negligence. The jury returned an award for plaintiff of $286. Despite her claim that the jury’s miniscule award was the result of passion or, prejudice, plaintiffs motion for a new trial was denied. We affirm because the verdict can be rationally explained with reference to the evidence; thus, there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of. a new trial.

Background

[¶ 2.] On July 10, 2003, Corrinna Wald-ner stopped her vehicle at the intersection of Sixth Street and Seventh Avenue in Brookings, South Dakota. She was waiting for the vehicle in front of her to make a left-hand turn. While she was stopped, her car was rear-ended by the vehicle driven by Beth Berglund. Berglund was driving approximately 30 miles per hour when her vehicle struck Waldner’s. The impact of the collision pushed -Waldner’s car into the vehicle in front of her. Berglund later explained that just before the accident, she was looking over at a patrol car and did not see Waldner’s stopped vehicle. The patrol car was about 30 feet away, where a patrolman was investigating a disabled vehicle. The officer heard the crash and responded to the accident.

[¶ 3.] Neither Waldner nor Berglund requested immediate medical attention. The next morning, however, Waldner felt pain in her neck area. She went to see Dr. David Eggers, a chiropractor. She told him that she had been in a car accident and that her neck hurt when she swallowed. He examined her, gave her an adjustment, and administered ultrasound therapy. He treated her again on July 14, 2003.

[¶ 4.] Waldner did not seek further treatment until February 16, 2004. Dr. Eggers’s notes from the February 16 appointment state, “Pt. [patient] presents stating that over the last couple of months she’s been having some increased discomfort in the neck that I think is still related to that MVA [motor vehicle accident]. Finding that I can’t sleep with my pillow any more because it’s becoming so uncomfortable and then when I lay flat on the bed by morning my neck is hurting even more so again. It just seems to be getting progressively worse. I was good for a while after this summer’s tx’s. [treatments] but then again started to bother me off and on.”

[¶ 5.] Waldner continued to receive treatments from Dr. Eggers, but she thought his treatment style was too rough. In May 2004, she started seeing Dr. Shannon DeBoer, another chiropractor. During the same time, Waldner sought massage therapy from various therapists, but she was not getting complete relief. In October 2004, Waldner went to Dr. Robert Suga, an orthopedic surgeon. He recommended that she discontinue chiropractic treatments. He prescribed medication to relax her muscles. Despite his advice, Waldner continued to receive chiropractic treatments, “Because I felt like I needed it.”

[¶ 6.] In May 2005, Dr. DeBoer recommended that Waldner see a physical therapist to strengthen her muscles. Waldner received physical therapy at the Brookings Medical Clinic. She later discontinued physical therapy because it aggravated her injury. She resumed chiropractic treatment and massage therapy. In March 2006, she went back to the Brookings Medical Clinic and obtained a referral to a pain specialist, Dr. Thomas Ripperda. He prescribed pain medication, a stretching program, electrical stimulation, and recommended continued massage therapy, physical therapy, and chiropractic care.

[¶ 7.] In the time Dr. Ripperda treated Waldner he also gave her trigger point injections. They did not take her pain away. Waldner also had an MRI, which Dr. Ripperda reported was normal. Wald-ner discontinued her pain medications because the side effects were worse than the pain. She also discontinued the electrical stimulation treatments because she believed they aggravated her injury. In December 2006, Dr. Ripperda recommended care on an as-needed basis. In Waldner’s last appointment with Dr. Ripperda in April 2007, he gave her a whole-person impairment rating of 8%. Dr. Ripperda did not believe any other or new interventions would remedy her situation. Waldner continued with her chiropractic care and massage therapy.

[¶ 8.] On May 23, 2006, Waldner brought suit against Berglund. She sought damages for (1) approximately $20,000 in medical expenses, (2) future medical expenses, (3) pain and suffering, and (4) an 8% permanent, whole-person impairment. In the jury trial, the circuit court granted Waldner’s directed verdict motion on Berglund’s negligence. Thus, the only issue submitted to the jury was the amount of Waldner’s damages, if any, legally caused by Berglund’s negligence. The jury returned a verdict awarding Waldner $286.

[¶ 9.] Waldner moved for a new trial. She asserted that the damage award was inadequate and given under the influence of passion or prejudice. She further claimed that the uneontroverted evidence presented at trial established that her medical expenses were a result of the accident. She similarly asserted that Berg-lund did not present evidence to contradict her proof of future medical expenses, pain and suffering, and permanent impairment. After a hearing on the motion, the court denied a new trial. It could not find any evidence to suggest that the damage award was the result of passion or prejudice, and it concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.

[¶ 10.] Waldner appeals, asserting that the court abused its discretion when it denied her request for a new trial. Berg-lund filed a notice of review contending that the court erred when it refused to admit medical reports under SDCL 19 — 16— 8.2.

Analysis and Decision

[¶ 11.] Our standard of review on a denial of a motion for a new trial is well established:

Whether a new trial should be granted is left to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and this Court will not disturb the trial court’s decision absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. If the trial court finds an injustice has been done by the jury’s verdict, the remedy lies in granting a new trial. We determine that an abuse of discretion occurred only if no judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion. Finally, we note a decision to grant a new trial stands oh firmer footing than a decision to deny a new trial.

Schuldies v. Millar, 1996 SD 120, ¶ 8, 555 N.W.2d 90, 95 (quoting Junge v. Jerzak, 519 N.W.2d 29, 31 (S.D.1994) (citations omitted)).

[¶ 12.] According to Waldner, we need not reweigh the evidence to conclude that the jury award was inadequate. Rather, she contends that because Berglund “presented no evidence” that her medical expenses were unreasonable or unrelated to the accident, her testimony and the medical evidence irrefutably established that the loss she suffered and will suffer in the future was legally caused by Berglund’s negligence. Berglund, on the other hand, contends that the verdict is supported by the evidence. According to Berglund, it is apparent that the jury did not believe that Waldner’s need for on-going treatment, which started seven months after the accident, was legally caused by Berglund’s negligence.

[¶ 13.] In a letter decision, the circuit court wrote:

The Court sees nothing in the record or from the Court’s hearing of the trial, observation of the jury, or voir dire that would give any indication whatsoever that the claimed inadequate damages were because of the influence of passion or prejudice on behalf of the jury.
The Court also finds that the evidence was sufficient to justify the verdict.... In this case it is easy, from the evidence, to determine how the jury arrived at the dollar sum in the verdict. The verdict amount references the medical expenses for seeing Dr. Eggers within days after the automobile accident. [Waldner] then did not go back to a medical practitioner for some seven months and at the time indicated that recurrent pain had only occurred for a couple months prior to that appointment, and that she had been good for quite a while after the initial consultation with Dr. Eggers. In addition her primary February complaints related to a pain when she leaned her head way back. It is obvious to the Court that the jury felt from the evidence that subsequent medical treatments and any pain [Waldner] may or may not have had were not related to the motor vehicle accident, or were not existent, or necessary.

[¶ 14.] In Itzen v. Wilsey, we held that “[t]he issue of damages in a personal injury action is peculiarly a question for the jury. The jury’s verdict should not be set aside except in those extreme cases where it is the result of passion or prejudice or where the jury has palpably mistaken the rules of law by which damages in a particular case are to be measured.” 440 N.W.2d 312, 313-14 (S.D.1989) (citing Stoltz v. Stonecypher, 336 N.W.2d 654 (S.D.1983); SDCL 15-6-59(a)(5)). “If the jury’s verdict can be explained with reference to the evidence rather than by juror passion, prejudice or mistake of law, the verdict should be affirmed.” Id. at 314.

[¶ 15.] Here, the jury apparently believed Waldner was damaged by Berg-lund’s negligence, but only to the extent of $286. Waldner’s reasons for seeking treatment following the accident were based in large part on her subjective descriptions of pain. While there was objective evidence that Waldner had medical problems, this does not mean they were caused by the accident. In fact, her chiropractor, Dr. Mary Kleinjan, agreed that her opinion that Waldner’s need for treatment was a result of the accident was based on speculation.

[¶ 16.] The medical records also support the jury’s verdict. They conflict with Waldner’s testimony at trial. She claimed that she experienced continuous pain since the day of the accident and that all her treatments were related to that pain. While she did receive medical care twice in the days following the accident, she did not seek further treatment until seven months later. Dr. Eggers’s medical records from that appointment indicate “over the last couple months she’s been having some increased discomfort to the neck....” From this the jury could have believed that Waldner’s need for treatment was not related to the accident, but was caused by something that happened a couple months before her chiropractic care.

[¶ 17.] Moreover, the jury heard testimony about the physical requirements of Waldner’s job as a house cleaner, pushing and pulling a vacuum, bending and lifting, and that she sometimes worked 50 to 60 hours a week. Waldner explained that her job does aggravate her injury and causes her increased pain. One provider recommended that she cut back on the hours she was working. In light of this testimony, the jury could have determined that some of Waldner’s pain was work related.

[¶ 18.] Waldner’s medical records further indicate that she had pain in other areas than first reported. For example, when Waldner first received treatment from Dr. Eggers in the days following the accident, she reported pain in the front of her neck when she swallowed and only a little pain in the back of the neck. Then, in her appointments following the seven-month hiatus, Waldner reported to Dr. Eggers that she experienced pain in her neck caused mainly when she tipped her head way back. Finally, Waldner’s descriptions of her pain to her subsequent providers included the neck, right shoulder, and low back. These varying descriptions of pain could have led the jury to conclude that Berglund’s negligence was not the cause.

[¶ 19.] This case turns primarily on witness credibility. We have often said that “[t]his Court is not free to reweigh the evidence or gauge the credibility of the witnesses.” Miller v. Hernandez, 520 N.W.2d 266, 272 (S.D.1994); see also Sporleder v. Van Liere, 1997 SD 110, ¶ 27, 569 N.W.2d 8, 14-15; Roth v. Farner-Bocken, 2008 SD 80, ¶ 8, 667 N.W.2d 651, 658-59; Andreson, 1997 SD 12, ¶ 8, 559 N.W.2d at 888. “ ‘The trial court is best able to judge whether the damages awarded by a jury are the product of passion or prejudice.’ ” Andreson, 1997 SD 12, ¶ 14, 559 N.W.2d at 889 (citations omitted). We conclude that the jury’s verdict can be explained with reference to the evidence, and therefore, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Waldner’s new trial motion. See id. ¶ 8 (quoting Miller, 520 N.W.2d at 272 (citations omitted)). Because we affirm the circuit court’s order denying a new trial, we need not reach Berglund’s notice of review issue.

[¶ 20.] Affirmed.

[¶ 21.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.

         This sum equals the charges for Waldner’s first two chiropractic treatments from Dr. Eg-gers. The verdict was general, however, and therefore, we cannot say conclusively what the verdict represents. See Andreson v. Black Hills Power & Light Co., 1997 SD 12, ¶ 14, 559 N.W.2d 886, 889-90.


author: GILBERTSON, Chief Justice. MEIERHENRY, Justice

text:
    2008 SD 77
    STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ryan A. WENDLING, Defendant and Appellee.
    No. 24598.
    Supreme Court of South Dakota.
    Considered on Briefs on March 26, 2008.
    Decided July 30, 2008.

      Lawrence E. Long, Attorney General, Frank Geaghan, Assistant Attorney General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.
    Michael J. Butler, Butler Law Office, P.C., Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Attorney for Defendant and Appellee.
   GILBERTSON, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1.] On February 7, 2007, Ryan A. Wendling (Wendling) was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure, Wendling filed a motion in the South Dakota Third Judicial Circuit to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop that led to the arrest. The circuit court granted the motion. The State filed a petition seeking discretionary intermediate review by this Court. We granted, that petition. We now reverse and remand.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] The traffic stop leading to Wen-dling’s arrest occurred' in the • City of Brookings, South Dakota, shortly before 1:00 a.m. on February 7, 2007. At that time, Officer Dana Rogers (Rogers) of the Brookings Police Department, had his patrol car positioned near the intersection of 6th Avenue and Front Street. As he looked to the west, he observed a pickup, operated by Wendling, that had been proceeding south on 5th Avenue as it turned east on to Front Street. The street at the time was covered with snow and ice. Rogers observed that “the back end of the pickup swung around and made a fishtail action” as it rounded the corner. Rogers stopped Wendling and thereafter asked Wendling to accompany him to the patrol car. Once Wendling was inside the patrol car, Rogers detected “a strong odor of alcoholic beverages.” Rogers administered a preliminary breath test, which indicated that Wendling had a blood alcohol content of .102. Rogers placed Wendling under arrest and transported him to the hospital emergency room where the results of a blood test revealed that Wen-dling’s blood alcohol content was .132.

[¶ 3.] Wendling was cited that day for overdriving road conditions in violation of SDCL 32-25-3. On February 22, 2007, the Brookings Police Department Chief of Police swore out a complaint against Wendling for DUI in violation of SDCL 32-23-1(1). An information charging Wendling with that offense was filed by the Brook-ings County State’s Attorney. Since Wen-dling had two prior DUI convictions within 10 years of February 7, 2007, a supplemental information charging him with felony third offense DUI in violation of SDCL 32-23-4 was also filed.

[¶ 4.] At a preliminary hearing on April 16, 2007, Rogers indicated that it was icy enough at the time of the traffic stop that he did not have Wendling perform an outdoor field sobriety test. He also stated that he assumed Wendling lost traction going around the corner because of the snow and ice and indicated that in his opinion a loss of traction under those conditions was not unusual.

[¶ 5.] When Wendling’s motion to suppress was heard on June 6, 2007, Rogers indicated that while he saw the pickup fishtail, he never saw it going sideways and reiterated his opinion that the snow and ice on the road were responsible for Wendling’s loss of traction. He also acknowledged that “other than the fact that the back-end [of the pickup] lost traction as it turned the corner on [the] icy street,” (emphasis added), there was nothing about Wendling’s driving that appeared erratic in the one-block stretch between 5th and 6th Avenues within which Rogers observed Wendling. Rogers then confirmed that his “sole basis” for initiating the stop was the fishtail as Wendling rounded the corner.

[¶ 6.] The circuit court entered its memorandum opinion on June 22, 2007, granting Wendling’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the February 7 traffic stop. The court’s memorandum decision was incorporated into its findings of fact and conclusions of law entered on July 20, 2007. The court found that Rogers stopped Wendling because of his suspicion that Wendling was overdriv-ing the road conditions when he rounded the corner of 5th Avenue and Front Street in violation of SDCL 32-25-3. Noting that the streets were “ice and snow covered” at the time, the court also found that the pickup “fishtailed” when it lost traction and that “Rogers did not observe any other erratic driving” as he watched the pickup travel toward him on Front street. (Emphasis added). Citing State v. Tiffin, 202 Or.App. 199, 121 P.3d 9, 12 (2005), the court concluded that in order for there to be justification for the stop, “Rogers’ [sic] suspicion of a violation [of SDCL 32-25-3 must be] objectively reasonable” and that “to be objectively reasonable, the facts as 'perceived by Rogers must actually constitute, or support a violation of the statute.” (Emphasis added). In reaching its decision to grant Wendling’s motion, the eir-cuit court also concluded that “Rogers did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a violation of [SDCL 32-25-3].” (Emphasis added).

[¶ 7.] The State raises one issue on appeal:

Whether the circuit court erred in granting Wendling’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the February 7, 2007, traffic stop based on its conclusion that there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion of a violation SDCL 32-25-3 to justify the stop.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 8.] When a motion to suppress evidence is based on an alleged violation of a constitutionally protected right, we apply the de novo standard to our review of the circuit court’s decision to grant or deny that motion. State v. Labine, 2007 SD 48, ¶ 12, 733 N.W.2d 265, 268-269. “While we review the [circuit] court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard, we give no deference to its conclusions of law and thereby apply the de novo-standard.” State v. Condon, 2007 SD 124, ¶ 15, 742 N.W.2d 861, 866 (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶ 9.] Whether the circuit court erred in granting Wendling’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the February 7, 2007, traffic stop based on its conclusion that there was no reasonable and articulable suspicion of a violation [of] SDCL 32-25-3 to justify the stop.

[¶ 10.] SDCL 32-25-3, the statute upon which Rogers issued the citation to Wen-dling for “overdriving road conditions,” provides as follows:

It is a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a highway located in this state at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing or at speeds in excess of those fixed by this chapter or provided by the Transportation Commission.

(Emphasis added). Referencing this statute in Conclusion 6, the circuit court stated:

... SDCL 32-25-3, regulates the speed of driving, not the manner of driving. The statute prohibits driving “at speeds greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.” There was little or no evidence presented by the State of what speed Wendling was driving, or of what speed would have been reasonable and prudent, or that excessive speed caused the fishtailing. Rogers’ opined that the fishtailing was caused by rapid or hard acceleration, a maneuver that can be done at almost any speed. Indeed, Rogers testified at the preliminary hearing in this matter that he assumed the loss of traction was due to the snow and ice and that this was not unusual considering the road conditions.

[¶ 11.] A review of the circuit court’s incorporated memorandum and its findings of fact and conclusions of law reveals that it erroneously applied the probable cause standard set out by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Tiffin to this largely factual conclusion. That court held in Tiffin:

An officer may lawfully stop and detain a person for a traffic infraction if the officer has probable cause to believe that an infraction has been committed. Probable cause exists if, at the time of the stop, the officer subjectively believes that the infraction occurred and if that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

121 P.3d at 11 (citing State v. Isley, 182 Or.App. 186, 48 P.3d 179 (2002))(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added). However, this is more than what is required to justify a lawful traffic stop in South Dakota. The standard we have consistently applied to justify a traffic stop is the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. State v. Lockstedt, 2005 SD 47, ¶ 16, 695 N.W.2d 718, 722 (quoting State v. Barton, 2001 SD 52, ¶ 13, 625 N.W.2d 275, 279); see also State v. Lownes, 499 N.W.2d 896, 898-99 (S.D.1993) (recognizing that the “reasonable suspicion” standard is less demanding than “probable cause”) (quoting Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2416, 110 L.Ed.2d 301, 309 (1990)).

[¶ 12.] In applying the reasonable suspicion standard, we recognize that “[w]hile the stop may not be the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity, it is enough that the stop is based upon ‘specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts reasonably warrant the intrusion.’ ” Lockstedt, 2005 SD 47, ¶ 17, 695 N.W.2d at 722; State v. Muller, 2005 SD 66, ¶ 14, 698 N.W.2d 285, 289; see also State v. Aaberg, 2006 SD 58, ¶¶ 13, 14, 718 N.W.2d 598, 601-02 (holding that the driver of a vehicle who pulled into the parking lot of a bar late in the evening, who staggered and nearly fell down, constituted a specific and articulable basis by which a reasonable police officer could suspect the subject was under the influence of alcohol); State v. Ballard, 2000 SD 134, ¶¶ 2, 11, 617 N.W.2d 837, 839, 840-41 (holding that a vehicle that was traveling part way on the shoulder and that then crossed over the center line, constituted reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop); State v. Sleep, 1999 SD 19, ¶ 8, 590 N.W.2d 235, 238 (weaving and straddling the line between lanes constitutes reasonable suspicion for a law enforcement traffic stop); State v. Thill, 474 N.W.2d 86, 88 (S.D.1991) (holding that avoidance of a road block was sufficient to create an articulable and reasonable suspicion supporting a traffic stop); State v. Anderson, 331 N.W.2d 568, 570 (S.D.1983) (holding reasonable suspicion and not probable cause necessary for traffic stop).

[¶ 13.] Based on a proper application of the reasonable suspicion standard, which is a less demanding standard than “probable cause,” to the material facts of this case, we conclude that there was a proper basis for Rogers to stop Wendling to ascertain the basis for the erratic driving. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[¶ 14.] SABERS, KONENKAMP, and ZINTER, Justices, concur.

[¶ 15.] MEIERHENRY, Justice, concurs in result.

MEIERHENRY, Justice

(concurring in result).

[¶ 16.] I concur in result; however, I write to clarify the correct standard for a valid traffic stop under the facts of this case. Since the officer observed what he believed was a traffic violation, he had probable cause to stop the vehicle. The officer did not stop the vehicle because he had suspicions of drunk driving or to investigate any other suspicious activity; he stopped Wendling to cite him for a traffic violation. Consequently, probable cause, not reasonable suspicion was the correct standard. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 1557, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001) (“If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender”); Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1772, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996) (“[T]he decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred”); Matter of Hopewell, 376 N.W.2d 812, 815 (S.D.1985). As LaFave’s treatise on Search and Seizure explains:

In the run-of-the-mill case, ... traffic stops are made based upon the direct observations of unambiguous conduct or circumstances by the stopping officer. That is, in most of the cases the stopping will have been made on full probable cause. Considering that the Supreme Court held in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista that probable cause alone suffices to justify a custodial arrest for the slightest traffic offense, it is apparent that probable cause is legally sufficient where the lesser intrusion of a traffic stop occurs (except perhaps for parking violations).

4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.3(a) at 360 (4th ed. 2004) (first emphasis added).

[¶ 17.] In contrast, if an officer has not witnessed a violation but only has reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, the officer can stop the vehicle to investigate under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (noting that a “police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest”) (emphasis added). See also State v. Hayen, 2008 SD 41, ¶ 5, 751 N.W.2d 306, 308 (recognizing that the “Fourth Amendment permits a brief investigatory stop of a vehicle”). Thus, while probable cause provides authority for a custodial arrest, reasonable suspicion provides authority to. stop an individual to investigate a suspected crime. Compare Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354, 121 S.Ct. at 1557, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (citation omitted) (any minor traffic violation equals probable cause and justifies custodial arrest “without the need to ‘balance’ the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations”), with Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-80, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (noting reasonable suspicion permits investigation of a crime without the authority to make arrest; however, there must be a “balancing [of] the need [i.e., ‘governmental interest’] to search (or seize) against the invasion which the search (or seizure) entails”); Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 699, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2592-93, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981) (noting that investigative seizures on less than probable cause are justified by “substantial law enforcement interests”) (emphasis added).

[¶ 18.] Here, the officer testified that the “sole” reason he made the traffic stop was because he observed Wendling overdrive the conditions in violation of SDCL 32-25-3. We have clearly said that: “[a]n officer’s observation of a traffic violation, however minor, gives the officer probable cause to stop a vehicle, even if the officer would have ignored the violation but for a suspicion that greater crimes are afoot.” State v. Akuba, 2004 SD 94, ¶ 16, 686 N.W.2d 406, 414 (citations omitted) (emphases added). Here, the officer did not make a Terry stop of Wendling to investigate suspicious activity, the officer stopped Wendling because he believed that he had probable cause to issue a citation.

[¶ 19.] Thus, the proper question was whether probable cause existed to warrant the stop. We have defined probable cause as follows:

Officers are not required to know facts sufficient to prove guilt, but only knowledge of facts sufficient to show probable cause for an arrest or search. These are factual and practical considerations of every day life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.
Probable cause is not determined with the benefit of hindsight, it is determined by those factors present at the time of the arrest which would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed.

Matter of Hopewell, 376 N.W.2d at 815 (S.D.1985) (citations and quotations omitted).

[¶ 20.] Although I believe that the proper test in this circumstance is a probable cause standard, I nevertheless would reverse the circuit court. Ultimately what the court appears to have done is to adjudicate the charge as opposed to determining if the officer had probable cause to stop and cite Wendling for overdriving the conditions. The officer had probable cause if the “factors present at the time ... would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed.” Matter of Hopewell, 376 N.W.2d at 815 (citations and quotations omitted). At the preliminary hearing, the officer described what he saw that caused him to stop Wendling and issue him a ticket. He testified as follows:

I was parked at the stop sign on the intersection of First Street and Sixth Avenue.
As I was parked facing west, I noticed a vehicle travel on to Front Street from Fifth Avenue, at that time the back end of the pickup swung around and made a fishtail action.

On cross examination, the officer described the “fishtailing” as follows: “The back end was — the back tires had lost traction causing the back end to swing around. It wasn’t going sideways or anything like that, but it was enough to notice from a block away.” The officer assumed the snow and ice caused the vehicle to lose traction.

[¶ 21.] The circuit court determined that because “there was little or no evidence presented by the State of what speed Wendling was driving, or of what speed would have been reasonable and prudent, or that excessive speed caused the fishtailing,” the officer “did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a violation.” The circuit court, however, found that “[the officer’s] opinion was that the loss of traction on the ice and snow was the cause of the fishtailing, in addition to the rapid acceleration of the vehicle.... The evidence therefore established that Wendling drove erratically-accelerated too hard and fishtailed, not that he drove too fast.” SDCL 32-25-3 criminalizes the operation of a vehicle “at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.” The officer’s description of the vehicle rapidly accelerating on the icy street causing it to fishtail provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to believe that Wendling was operating his vehicle at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the icy conditions. Although the facts may be insufficient to convince a trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, the findings of fact were sufficient to establish probable cause to stop the vehicle.


author: STREIT, Justice.

text:
    Marc A. WALLACE, Gregory A. Wells, Shannon Boswell, Mike Murray, Gayle J. Murray, Kathleen L. Gingerich, Tracy Lynch, and Scott D. Neal, Appellants, v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Appellee.
    No. 06-1333.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Aug. 8, 2008.

      Bruce E. Johnson of Cutler Law Firm, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellants.
    Andrew J. Bracken of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
   STREIT, Justice.

Several taxpayers filed a certiorari action challenging the Des Moines School Board’s decision to close certain schools and reappropriate resources to other needs. The district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment finding certiorari was not an available remedy to the taxpayers because the Board’s action was not judicial or quasi-judicial. We affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

In 1998, the Iowa legislature created Iowa Code chapter 422E, which permitted the imposition of a local option sales tax for school infrastructure improvements upon local voter approval. Shortly after the adoption of this legislation, the various school districts in Polk County, including the Des Moines School District, adopted separate resolutions to submit a local option sales tax referendum to the voters of Polk County. The county held a public referendum in March 1999, but the local option sales tax for schools in Polk County was narrowly defeated.

In July 1999, the Board of Directors for the Des Moines School District (“Board”) adopted a resolution requesting the Polk County Board of Supervisors to once again submit a ballot initiative to the voters for the imposition of a local option sales tax for school infrastructure purposes. After obtaining community input, the Board adopted a ten-year plan specifying needed improvements to each facility within the school district with the improvements being funded by revenue from such a tax. The plan noted the cost of improvements exceeded the projected revenue from the local option sales tax and that the plan was subject to modification based on program and demographic changes.

In November 1999, a proposal to impose a 1% local option sales tax was presented to Polk County voters. The measure indicated revenue would be spent on school infrastructure as defined in section 422E.1 and as specified by each infrastructure project plan for each school district located within the county. The proposal passed, and the Board began making improvements to the Des Moines district’s facilities with adjustments to the plan.

By 2004, the Board realized the actual revenues from the local option sales tax where short of projections. Additionally, building costs since 1999 had escalated, and the district’s allocation of the collected local option sales tax revenues was reduced due to a decline in public school enrollment in Des Moines. Consequently, on July 12, 2005, the Board modified the ten-year plan by deciding to close four elementary schools and sell a central facility that provided advanced secondary education and technical training courses. The modification included additional spending on new facilities that was not part of the original plan. The Board also approved hiring a construction firm to create a management plan in connection with the infrastructure projects. This expense was not specified in the original plan either.

The plaintiffs are Des Moines residents, taxpayers, and parents of children they claim are affected and aggrieved by the Board’s July 12 decision (“taxpayers”). In August 2005, the taxpayers filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging the Board’s decision to modify the original plan for school infrastructure improvements. They claimed the Board acted illegally and asked that the Board’s July 12 decision “be annulled and decreed void.”

The Board moved for summary judgment. It claimed allocation of resources by a local school board is a legislative decision and not subject to review by cer-tiorari. The Board contended the taxpayers’ proper remedy was to appeal to the Iowa Department of Education, which the taxpayers had done.

The district court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. It determined the Board’s actions did not involve judicial functions subject to certiorari review. Alternatively, the district court found even if certiorari was appropriate, the taxpayers failed to prove the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted illegally. The taxpayers appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

II. Scope of Review.

We review a district court decision granting or denying a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. 6.4. A matter may be resolved on summary judgment if the record reveals only a conflict concerning the legal consequences of undisputed facts. City of Fairfield v. Harper Drilling Co., 692 N.W.2d 681, 681 (Iowa 2005). The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3). An issue of fact is “material” only when the dispute involves facts which might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable governing law. Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988). The requirement of a “genuine” issue of fact means the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. In a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party enjoys the benefit of “every legitimate inference that [could] be reasonably deduced from the record.” Phillips v. Covenant Clinic, 625 N.W.2d 714, 718 (Iowa 2001).

III. Merits.

The issue before us is whether the taxpayers may challenge the Board’s actions in a certiorari action. Certiorari is an “extraordinary remedy.” Hohl v. Bd. of Educ., 250 Iowa 502, 509, 94 N.W.2d 787, 791 (1959). It “is the method for bringing the record of an inferior tribunal before the court for the purpose of ascertaining whether the inferior tribunal or body had jurisdiction and whether its proceedings were authorized.” Id. at 508, 94 N.W.2d at 791; see also Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1403 (stating “relief by way of certiorari shall be strictly limited to questions of jurisdiction or illegality of the act complained of, unless otherwise specially provided by statute”). Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1401 describes when a writ of certiorari may issue:

A writ of certiorari shall only be granted when specifically authorized by statute; or where an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally.

The taxpayers do not allege any statutory authorization for the issuance of a writ in the instant case. Thus, their claim can only survive if the Board was exercising “judicial functions” when it voted to amend its ten-year plan on July 12.

We do not construe “judicial functions” in a strict or technical sense. Hoefer v. Sioux City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 375 N.W.2d 222, 224 (Iowa 1985). Therefore, the action of the Board need only be quasi-judicial to support a certiorari proceeding. Id. We consider three factors to determine whether an action is judicial or quasi-judicial in nature: (1) whether “ ‘the questioned act involves a proceeding in which notice and an opportunity to be heard are required;’ ” (2) whether “ ‘a determination of rights of parties is made which requires the exercise of discretion in finding facts and applying the law thereto;’ ” or (3) whether “ ‘the challenged act goes to the determination of some right the protection of which is the peculiar office of the courts.’ ” Id. at 224-25 (quoting Buechele v. Ray, 219 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1974)). “ ‘[QJuasi ordinarily means superficially resembling but intrinsically different. Therefore, when an activity appears to be judicial in nature, but in reality is not, it is termed quasi-judicial.’ ” Id. at 225 (quoting Buechele, 219 N.W.2d at 681). However, “‘the mere exercise of judgment or discretion is not alone sufficient to characterize an act as quasi-judicial.’ ” Id. (quoting Buechele, 219 N.W.2d at 681).

There is a tendency to broaden the scope of the writ where no other form of redress is provided and “substantial justice will not be done” unless such relief is granted. Hohl, 250 Iowa at 509, 94 N.W.2d at 791-92; see also Dunphy v. City Council, 256 N.W.2d 913, 918 (Iowa 1977) (stating certiorari “ ‘is especially applicable in cases where inferior boards, officers, or tribunals exceed their authority and no method of appeal has been provided by statute.’ ” (quoting Bremer County v. Walstead, 130 Iowa 164, 169, 106 N.W. 352, 354 (1906))). However, a “writ shall not be denied or annulled because plaintiff has another plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1403. With these principles in mind, we determine whether the Board’s action in this case is judicial or quasi-judicial.

A. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. The taxpayers do not identify any entitlement to notice or an opportunity to be heard. They are challenging a decision of the Board as to how to appropriate the local option sales tax revenues and more specifically, the decision to close certain schools. The only source of “notice and opportunity to be heard” comes from Iowa Administrative Code rules 281-19.1-19.3. There, the Iowa Department of Education created rules a school district must follow to involve the public in decisions to close a school. While school boards have the discretion to determine the number of schools it shall operate within their districts, they are required to provide “public notice” and encourage “public consideration” and “public involvement” in any decision to close a school. Iowa Admin. Code § 281-19.1. When making such a decision, the board is required to inform the community “in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information,” “seek public input in all study and planning steps involved in making the decision,” “promote open and frank public discussion of the facts and issues involved,” and “make its final decision in an open meeting.” Id. § 281-19.2. However, this procedure is not akin to procedural due process. These rules do not guarantee individuals, including the taxpayers, of an individual right to be heard during the Board’s consideration of the issues.

B. Determination of Rights. Likewise, the taxpayers do not identify any right the determination of which requires any fact finding or application of law by the Board or any right the determination of which is traditionally a function of the courts. The only right at issue is the right of school-age children to attend a public school. The decision of the Board did not jeopardize any student’s right to receive an education. Rather, some students will be attending a different school as a result. Determining where any given student will attend public schools is a legislative decision that only a school board is authorized to make. Howell Sch. Bd. Dist. No. 9 v. Hubbartt, 246 Iowa 1265, 1274-75, 70 N.W.2d 531, 536 (1955). Similarly, we have held appropriation of money is a legislative function left up to the discretion of the political system. Welden v. Ray, 229 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Iowa 1975).

We think it is inappropriate to classify the Board’s decision to modify the ten-year plan as a judicial or quasi-judicial function. We note the taxpayers are not without a remedy. In addition to appealing to the Iowa Department of Education, the taxpayers had the option to seek in-junctive relief. Taxpayers have a vested interest in ensuring their tax dollars are lawfully spent. Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. Weiss, 338 Ark. 9, 991 S.W.2d 536, 539 (1999). Thus, taxpayers have the right to bring an action to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds. Erickson v. City of Cedar Rapids, 193 Iowa 109, 119, 185 N.W. 46, 51 (Iowa 1921) (stating “it is elemental that a taxpayer can restrain the illegal acts of public officials”); see also E. Mo. Laborers Dist. Council v. St. Louis County, 781 S.W.2d 43, 46 (Mo.1989) (“The right of a taxpayer, on behalf of himself and other taxpayers similarly situated, to bring an action to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds cannot be questioned.”). However, to have standing, a taxpayer must demonstrate the expenditure is illegal, rather than merely unwise or indiscreet. S. Tex. Water Auth. v. Lomas, 223 S.W.3d 304, 307 (Tex.2007).

Regardless of whether the taxpayers filed certiorari or sought an injunction, their claim must fail because they failed to prove the Board acted illegally. Contrary to the taxpayers’ assertions, the Board’s initial ten-year plan was not set in stone. The plan made clear it was preliminary and subject to change. The “Vision” section of the plan included the following statement:

The money received from the local sales and service tax will be used to provide funds to build and furnish new school buildings or additions to school buildings; to improve, remodel, furnish and repair school buildings; to purchase and improve sites for school buildings or additions to school buildings; to pay the costs of emergency repairs; to respond to natural disaster such as fire, wind damage, flood, unanticipated mechanical, plumbing, structural, roof, or electrical systems failure, environmental remediation, or to respond to changes in demographics that require unanticipated construction, additions, or improvements to school buildings, or the construction of new school buildings.

(Emphasis added.) This statement of the proposed use of the tax revenue was consistent with the authorized use of local option sales tax revenue. See Iowa Code §.422E.1(3) (1999).

While the plan identified the needs of all of the then-existing schools in the district, it noted the plan was subject to budget constraints, demographic changes, and program needs. For example, the “Vision” statement said:

While the community desires detailed information regarding the District’s 10-Year Facility Plan, it also recognizes the need to modify the plan when necessary to respond to change in enrollments and program needs. School mergers, including possibly creating some kindergarten through 8th grade schools, may occur during the 10-Year Plan period. Mergers will only be undertaken with extensive public input.

Additionally, the plan emphasized modifications would be necessary because the projected total costs to renovate all of the existing buildings exceeded the projected revenues from the local-option sales tax by 19 percent. Unfortunately, the tax revenues generated were even less than anticipated. We are not equipped to determine whether the Board’s modifications to the plan were wise or fair. We can only say the changes were permissible in light of the fact the plan forecasted and allowed for adjustment and modification.

The taxpayers argue Iowa law prohibits the Board from modifying the plan absent voter approval. However, the taxpayers rely on a statutory amendment which was not in existence when the local option sales tax was approved. In 2003, the legislature amended chapter 422E (now chapter 423E) to require voter approval before a school district could change the use of the revenue generated from a local option sales tax. See Iowa Code § 423E.2(4)(a) (2003). The amendment took effect May 30, 2003. 2003 Iowa Acts ch. 157, § 11. There is no indication the legislature intended the amendment to be applied retroactively. See Iowa Code § 4.5 (stating a “statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective”). Moreover, even if the amendment were applicable, there was no change in use in the revenues because the plan anticipated modification throughout the ten years the tax was in effect.

In sum, the taxpayers have failed to prove the Board’s actions on July 12 were “judicial” or “quasi-judicial.” Consequently, their certiorari action must fail. While we sympathize with the taxpayers and their desire to maintain their neighborhood schools, the Board has the authority to determine the number and location of schools and appropriate the necessary resources to maintain them. The taxpayers failed to demonstrate the Board acted illegally or exceeded its jurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion.

The district court properly granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment. The taxpayers failed to prove the Board’s actions were reviewable in a certiorari action.

AFFIRMED.

All justices concur except BAKER, J. and APPEL, J., who take no part.

      . On the day they filed their petition for cer-tiorari, the taxpayers also filed an appeal to the Iowa Department of Education pursuant to Iowa Code section 290.1. The Department ruled in favor of the Board in May 2006. The taxpayers’ appeal of the agency decision pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.19 is currently pending in the district court for Polk County-


author: APPEL, Justice.

text:
    MIDWEST AMBULANCE SERVICE and Combined Specialty Insurance, f/k/a/ Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Appellants, v. Jodi RUUD, Appellee.
    No. 06-1377.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Aug. 15, 2008.

      Steven M. Nadel of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
    Mindi M. Vervaecke of Fitzsimmons & Vervaecke Law Firm, P.L.C., Mason City, for appellee.
   APPEL, Justice.

This case involves an appeal of a decision of the district court affirming an award of workers’ compensation benefits to a former employee. The employer claims that the workers’ compensation commissioner erroneously determined that the claim was timely, that the employer was not entitled to credit for medical expenses paid through COBRA, and that the employer was required to repay medical benefits paid by the employee’s private insurer. After a divided court of appeals sitting en banc affirmed the judgment of the district court, we granted further review. We now affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background.

Jodi Ruud is a certified emergency medical technician who began working for Midwest Ambulance Service (Midwest) in Des Moines in 1998. On May 12, 2000, Ruud dislocated her left shoulder while spraying the inside of ambulance walls with disinfectant and wiping them down. With the assistance of a co-worker, Ruud was able to relocate the shoulder.

Ruud filed an accident report the day of the incident and was sent by Midwest to Dr. David Berg for medical treatment. Berg diagnosed a left shoulder dislocation, returned Ruud to work immediately without restriction, and referred her to physical therapy. No further treatment was recommended by Berg. In his notes, however, Berg observed that Ruud’s shoulder will “dislocate again!”

Ruud attended one physical therapy session. According to Ruud, the physical therapist told her that she “may” need surgery or “eventually” would need surgery sometime in the future.

Ruud’s shoulder injury did not cause her to miss work and did not greatly affect her physical mobility. Her shoulder did, however, continue to dislocate over the next several months when Ruud was performing mundane tasks. When these dislocations occurred she was able to relocate her shoulder on her own and did not seek further medical treatment. Ruud testified that she did not seek medical treatment because her shoulder injury did not affect her daily work, she was uncertain as to who would be financially responsible for treatment, and she was in denial over fear that surgery might ruin her career.

On June 16, 2002, Ruud reinjured and dislocated her shoulder while diving at an off-duty social event. The reinjured shoulder now, for the first time, prevented her from returning to work. On June 20, Ruud made a request in writing to Midwest for shoulder treatment.

On July 11, Ruud reported to Midwest that she experienced left shoulder pain and strain after lifting a patient who was lying on a cot. Midwest sent her to see Dr. Virginia Geary. Geary refused to provide treatment, stating that Ruud’s employer was denying workers’ compensation liability because the injury was not work-related and that, in any event, more than two years had elapsed since the initial work injury of May 12, 2000. Geary, however, excused Ruud from work pending further treatment. Geary further advised Ruud to see an orthopedist using her private medical insurance.

Ruud was unable to return to work after July 2002. She exercised her COBRA benefits in order to continue her health insurance coverage under Midwest’s group medical plan. During the period of COBRA coverage, Ruud paid the required premiums personally and in full. On September 25, 2002, Ruud had arthroscopic surgery to repair the tear and reconstruct her left shoulder. Ruud was subsequently placed on restricted duty and provided physical therapy.

Ruud filed a workers’ compensation claim on September 10, 2003 against Midwest and Midwest’s workers’ compensation insurer, Combined Specialty Insurance (Combined). The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner determined that Ruud’s claim was time barred. According to the deputy, Iowa Code section 85.23 (2003) requires a claimant to give notice of the occurrence of an injury to the employer within ninety days of the date of the occurrence. The deputy recognized that the time period for giving notice does not begin to run until the claimant knows or should have known the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury. The deputy found, however, that a reasonable person in Ruud’s, position should have been aware of the seriousness of her injury as of May 12, 2000. Because Ruud did not inform h.er employer of the injury within the statutory period, her claim was barred.

On intra-agency appeal, the commissioner reversed the decision. • The commissioner found that at the time of Dr. Berg’s examination, “it was reasonable for claimant to be optimistic about the condition and to not consider it to be serious even though she realized it had the potential to become serious at some undetermined time in the future.” The commissioner determined that it was not until June 2002 that Ruud was placed on notice of the severity of her injury. As a result, the commissioner held that Ruud’s September 10, 2003 petition was brought within two years of the date at which Ruud knew or should have known of the seriousness of the injury.

In light of his holding that Ruud’s claim was not time barred, the commissioner considered the remaining issues presented in the case. With respect to the issue of whether the employer was entitled to a credit against benefits owed for payments made by Ruud’s health insurance, the commissioner determined that because Ruud herself paid the premiums for the COBRA benefits, the employer was not entitled to a credit. The commissioner further concluded that amounts paid by Ruud’s private insurance were attributable to her as if she had made the payments directly. Ruud was thus entitled to reimbursement for those payments.

Midwest and Combined appealed the commissioner’s decision to the district court. On appeal, the district court affirmed the commissioner on the statute of limitations issue. The district court held that the question of whether a worker knew or should have known of the seriousness of an injury is a question of fact to be determined in the first instance by the commissioner. The district court held that the finding of the agency that Ruud did not or should not have known of the seriousness of the injury was supported by substantial evidence.

The district court also affirmed the commissioner’s determination that the employer was not entitled to a credit for COBRA benefits paid by Ruud’s group health insurer. The district court did not rule on the issue of reimbursement for private insurance payments and declined the motion of Midwest and Combined to expand its findings and conclusions with respect to that issue.

Midwest and Combined appealed and the case was transferred to the court of appeals, which considered the case en banc. A six-member majority affirmed the district court’s holdings on the statute of limitations issue, the credit issue, and the private insurance issue. Three members of the court of appeals dissented, asserting that Ruud’s claim was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

We granted further review. On further review, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

Iowa Code chapter 17A governs judicial review of decisions of the workers’ compensation commissioner. Iowa Code § 86.26. Factual findings of the commissioner are reversed only if they are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. § 17A.19(10)(/). Application of workers’ compensation laws to facts as found by the commissioner is clearly vested in the commissioner. Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 465 (Iowa 2004). As a result, we may reverse the commissioner’s application of the law to the facts only if it is “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m); Finch v. Schneider Specialized Carriers, Inc., 700 N.W.2d 328, 330 (Iowa 2005). Finally, interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes and related case law has not been clearly vested within the discretion of the agency, so this court is free to substitute its judgment de novo for the agency’s interpretation of law. Id.

III. Discussion.

A. Statute of Limitations Issue. The threshold issue in this case is whether Ruud’s petition was timely under Iowa Code section 85.26. In determining whether the statute of limitations began to run, the commissioner used the correct legal standard, namely, whether Ruud acting as a reasonable person knew or should have known that her physical condition was serious enough “to have a permanent adverse impact on the claimant’s employment or employability....” Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284, 288 (Iowa 2001) (citing Or v. Lewis Cent. Sch. Dist., 298 N.W.2d 256, 257 (Iowa 1980)). As a result, the provisions of Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(c), which vest authority in this court to reverse an agency determination based upon an erroneous interpretation of law not vested in the agency’s discretion, has no application.

Instead, this court can reverse the decision only if the commissioner’s factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence as provided in Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(i9 or upon a showing that the commissioner’s application of law to the facts of this case meets the demanding “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable” standard of section 17A.19(10)(to). See generally Clark v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 696 N.W.2d 596, 603-04 (Iowa 2005).

We turn first to the findings of the commissioner regarding whether Ruud knew or should have known of the nature, seriousness, and probable compensability of her claim. Based upon his review of the record in this case, the commissioner found that Ruud did not miss work or incur any expenses related to her shoulder injury until June or July 2002. The commissioner noted that her failure to realize that her injury was serious was reasonable in light of Dr. Berg having immediately released her to return to work without restrictions and without recommending further care other than a brief amount of physical therapy. The commissioner found that Ruud was not and could not have been aware as a reasonable person, of the probable nature, seriousness, and com-pensable character of her injury until June 2002, when her injury became sufficiently serious to force her to miss work and undergo surgical repair of her shoulder. The question of whether a claimant knew, or should have known, of the nature, seriousness, and probable compensability of her injury is a question of fact to be determined by the commissioner. Gates v. John Deere Ottumwa Works, 587 N.W.2d 471, 475 (Iowa 1998); Dillinger v. City of Sioux City, 368 N.W.2d 176, 182 (Iowa 1985).

As suggested by Midwest and Combined, there was evidence in the record which could have been marshaled to support a contrary determination. Shortly after her original injury, a physical therapist suggested that surgery “might” or “eventually would” be required. In the months following her original injury, Ruud experienced repeated shoulder separations with some soreness. There was also evidence in the record that Ruud was concerned that her injury could eventually cause her work-related problems.

Mere recognition that there is .substantial contrary evidence in the record does not mean that the commissioner’s determination may be successfully attacked on appeal. The burden on the party who was unsuccessful before the commissioner is not satisfied by a showing that the decision was debatable, or even that a preponderance of evidence supports a contrary view. The burden is on the unsuccessful party to show that the commissioner’s determination is lacking in substantial evidence. Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213, 218 (Iowa 2006).

Like the majority of the court of appeals, we simply cannot reach that conclusion in light of the evidence when reviewed as a whole. Dr. Berg allowed Ruud to go back to work the day of her initial injury without restriction and prescribed only a minimal amount of physical therapy as part of a conservative treatment plan. Until June 2002, Ruud was able to work without restrictions. Until the diving incident in 2002, Ruud’s shoulder problem was more of a nuisance than anything else. There was sufficient evidence in the record from which the commissioner could conclude that Ruud was not and should not have been aware that her condition was serious enough “to have a permanent adverse impact on the claimant’s employment or employability ...” until after that time. Herrera, 633 N.W.2d at 288.

Given this evidence in the record, Midwest and Combined in effect invite us to engage in a “scrutinizing analysis” of the commissioner’s finding, an approach which we have expressly disavowed. Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 272 (Iowa 1995). Such “scrutinizing analysis” would tend to undercut the overarching goal of the workers’ compensation system, ‘“for, if we trench in the slightest degree upon the prerogatives of the commission, one encroachment will breed another, until finally simplicity will give way to complexity, and informality to technicality.’ ” Zomer v. West River Farms, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 2003) (quoting Flint v. City of Eldon, 191 Iowa 845, 847, 183 N.W. 344, 345 (1921)).

Given the binding findings of the commissioner, we next consider the question of whether the application of law to these facts was “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(roj. We cannot conclude that the commissioner’s application was any of the above. The commissioner determined that Ruud was not aware, and should not have been aware, of the nature, seriousness, and probable compensability of her injury until June 2002. Given this factual finding, we conclude that under Iowa Code section 85.26, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until June 2002. Because her petition was filed within two years of June 2002, the commissioner’s conclusion that it was timely was correct.

B. Credit for Payment of Medical Expenses. The district court affirmed a holding by the commissioner that Midwest and Combined were not entitled to a credit for the payment of medical expenses made by Ruud’s group health insurance carrier. The issue arises because a portion of Ruud’s medical expenses were paid during a period when Ruud had exercised her COBRA rights.

Iowa Code section 85.38(2) relates to the issue of employer credits when payments are made by a group health plan. This provision provides, in relevant part:

In the event the employee with a disability shall receive any benefits, including medical, surgical, or hospital benefits, under any group plan covering nonoccupational disability contributed to wholly or partially by the employer ... then the amounts so paid to the employee from the group plan shall be credited to or against any compensation payments ....

Iowa Code § 85.38(2) (emphasis added).

Midwest and Combined argue that as long as Midwest contributed to “any group plan,” it is entitled to a credit under this statutory provision. Midwest and Combined assert that under the literal language of the statute, it is irrelevant that Ruud paid the premiums for the continuation of her group health insurance coverage as long as the employer was contributing in some fashion to the underlying group plan. Since the employer continued to contribute to the group plan for employees other than Ruud, Midwest and Combined argue that the statutory requirement for crediting any group plan payments against workers’ compensation benefits has been met.

Ruud counters that Midwest and Combined’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.38(2) is contrary to legislative intent. Ruud argues that the legislature did not intend an employer to receive credit under Iowa Code section 85.38(2) when the employer is not contributing to the premiums of the claimant.

We agree with Ruud. The obvious purpose of Iowa Code section 85.38(2) is to avoid duplication of payments by an employer to an employee. It would be odd, moreover, for an employer to be entitled to a credit against a workers’ compensation award to employee A because the employer made contributions for group health insurance for employees B, C, and D, but not A.

While the ambiguous statutory language is not a model of clarity, the statutory purpose of workers’ compensation would not be advanced by the illogical approach advocated by Midwest and Combined. State v. Ross, 729 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Iowa 2007). We therefore hold that under Iowa Code section 85.38(2), the employer must contribute in whole or in part to a group insurance plan for the benefit of the claimant in order to be entitled to the statutory credit. Because Midwest and Combined have not proven that they contributed to Ruud’s COBRA payments, they cannot prevail on their claim under section 85.38(2).

C. Direct Payments to Ruud. The final issue for us to consider is whether the commissioner erred in ordering Midwest and Combined, pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.27, to reimburse Ruud directly for any medical payments made by insurance plans to which Midwest did not contribute. Section 85.27(1) provides that the employer shall furnish reasonable medical services and supplies for injuries compensable under workers’ compensation.

Midwest and Combined argue that under Rethamel v. Havey, 715 N.W.2d 263 (Iowa 2006), Ruud must prove that she paid the medical expenses herself in order to receive reimbursement. In Rethamel, we stated that a claimant must make “a specific showing that the claimant himself paid the medical expenses.” Rethamel, 715 N.W.2d at 267 (emphasis added). While Ruud concedes that she and her husband did not directly pay the medical bills from their own funds, they argue that they essentially paid for the medical bills by purchasing private insurance coverage.

The Rethamel case relied upon our previous decision in Krohn v. State, 420 N.W.2d 463 (Iowa 1988). In Krohn, we held that a workers’ compensation claimant was not entitled to be paid sums for medical and hospital expenses absent a showing that the worker personally paid the medical suppliers. Krohn, 420 N.W.2d at 464-65. As a result, the employer was entitled to make an arrangement for providing medical and hospital benefits through a group nonoccupational medical and insurance plan, instead of making direct repayments. Id. at 465.

We find that Rethamel and Krohn are not dispositive of the issue in this case. Language in Rethamel and Krohn suggests that there must be a specific showing that claimant paid the medical expenses directly in order to be entitled to be paid for these expenses. While it may be true that the commissioner’s decision in Retha-mel states that the claimant did obtain medical and health insurance at her or her husband’s expense, neither our decision in Rethamel or in Krohn specifically addressed the issue presented in this case, namely, whether the payment of insurance premiums not provided by the employer amounts to personally paying for the underlying medical benefits.

The commissioner concluded that amounts paid by private insurance are attributable to the plaintiff as if she made those payments herself. The commissioner reasoned that other health insurance plans may have subrogation rights against an insured who receives benefits under workers’ compensation. In order to avoid a situation where a health insurance company sought reimbursement from the claimant for expenses that the employer has not paid, the commissioner held that the employer must pay to the claimant an amount equal to the medical benefits that were covered by the insurer.

We believe that the commissioner has adopted the most sensible approach to this unusual issue. Doe v. Ray, 251 N.W.2d 496, 504 (Iowa 1977) (“In construing a statute we attempt to give it a sensible, practical, workable and logical construction.”). We note that under Iowa Code section 85.38(2), an employer who wholly or partially provides insurance under a group plan is entitled to a credit not simply of the premiums paid, but of the full amount of benefits paid by the group plan for injuries covered by workers’ compensation. In light of this statutory provision, the reverse should also be true, namely, that an employee who pays group health insurance premiums has, in effect, paid for medical expenses covered by the group plan. See State v. Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d 304, 308 (Iowa 2006) (“The interpretation of a statute requires an assessment of the statute in its entirety, not just isolated words or phrases.”). We therefore hold that the commissioner did not err in ordering direct payment to the claimant for past medical expenses paid through insurance coverage obtained by the claimant independent of any employer contribution.

IV. Conclusion.

The district court’s holding that Ruud’s claim is not time barred and that Midwest and Combined are not entitled to a credit for payments made by Ruud’s COBRA insurance is affirmed. In addition, we hold that the commissioner properly determined that Ruud is entitled to direct payment of funds from Midwest and Combined to cover the cost of medical expenses paid for by other insurance.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.

All justices concur except BAKER, J., who takes no part.