Adams v. H.R. Allen, Inc. At the original hearing before the single commissioner, the reporter’s equipment malfunctioned, and portions of the hearing were inaudible. When the Workers’ Compensation Commission remanded for a rehearing, the single commissioner could have conducted a completely new hearing or simply reconstructed the missing parts of the missing transcript.
Thigpen v. Lexington Medical Center Plaintiff’s family physician – who said he was not an expert on carpal tunnel syndrome – testified that the claimant’s job duties could “potentially exacerbate” her carpal tunnel syndrome. The orthopedic surgeon who performed the claimant’s carpal tunnel surgery testified that he could not say what caused the claimant’s carpal tunnel syndrome or how long it had been present. He said he was “not certain as to the causation of her carpal tunnel syndrome, but her job activities, if she does a lot of repetitive flexion, extension activities most probably can aggravate any preexisting problems.” This evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a direct causal connection between the repetitive activities of the claimant’s job and her carpal tunnel syndrome.
McCall v. Sandvik, Inc. The claimant’s obligation to provide notice under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-20(C) was triggered only after her repetitive trauma injury (RTI) required medical care or interfered with her ability to perform her job – neither of which occurred prior to her diagnosis on Nov. 29, 2007.
Cranford v. Hutchinson Construction Claimant returned to work three weeks after his accident and was assigned to light-duty tasks. Because claimant returned to work for at least 15 days and was provided suitable employment during that time, the employer was not required to resume temporary disability payments under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-260(B)(1) when the employer fired claimant for being unsafe on the job site.
Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc. Defendants paid the claimant temporary total disability benefits and did not raise the defense against compensability until 450 days after the claimant’s accident. Although S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-260 does not bar the defense as untimely, the defense was nevertheless barred by the doctrines of waiver and laches.
Dinkins v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. Although claimant suffered successive compensable injuries and is now unable to find work within his restrictions, since his restrictions arise from just one of his injuries (a back injury), claimant is not entitled to total disability benefits; instead, he is limited to the scheduled benefits for the partial disability of his back.
We affirm the limitation of benefits to those under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-30.
Price v. Peachtree Electrical Services, Inc. Plaintiff suffered back injuries while working for successive employers. Instead of filing a new workers’ compensation claim with his second employer, he sought and received additional benefits from his first employer. The first employer’s claim for reimbursement from the second employer is not within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Michau v. Georgetown County While S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172 requires that, in a repetitive trauma workers’ compensation case, “opinion or testimony” be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” the statute does not require that “documents, records, or other material” be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”
Brunson v. American Koyo Bearings Even though the claimant presented medical and lay testimony in support of her claim, there was medical evidence to the contrary, the single commissioner found that the claimant was not credible, and the single commissioner discounted testimony from other lay witnesses because they were the claimant’s friends outside work.
Since the evidence is conflicting over a factual issue, the findings of the Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission are conclusive. We affirm the circuit court’s decision to uphold the Appellate Panel’s denial of benefits.
Landry v. Carolinas Healthcare Systems Where the claimant had been diagnosed with bunions when she was 13 years old and had been warned by her doctor that prolonged standing could aggravate her condition, the aggravation of the claimant’s bunions by the prolonged standing required by her job was not an unexpected injury; therefore, it is not compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act.
We affirm the denial of benefits.
Next Page »
