Workers’ Compensation – Final Decision – Appealability

The Workers’ Compensation Commission’s order is neither a final decision nor is it the type of interlocutory order that has to be reviewed immediately to ensure adequate appellate review.

We dismissed this case as not immediately appealable.

This appeal concerned an award of temporary disability payments and medical benefits in a workers’ compensation case. The parties to this appeal are the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and Zachary Brown (Claimant). The key dispute before the Workers’ Compensation Commission was whether Claimant’s employer, Southeastern Services, H.H.I., LLC, regularly employed four or more employees and was subject to the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Fund argued the commission erred in finding Southeastern had the requisite number of employees. Claimant defended the commission’s decision. At our request, Claimant and the Fund submitted supplemental briefs addressing whether the commission’s decision is immediately appealable. As both sides acknowledge, the right to immediately appeal a workers’ compensation case is controlled by the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA), which provides that only two types of orders are immediately appealable: final decisions and intermediate orders for which delayed review will not provide an adequate remedy. The order in this case is neither a final decision nor is it the type of interlocutory order that must be immediately reviewed for appellate review to be adequate.

As the parties conceded, the order in this case is not a “final decision.” The commission’s order did two things: it addressed whether Southeastern had the number of employees required to fall under the commission’s jurisdiction and it established Claimant’s entitlement to certain temporary benefits. Claimant has not reached maximum medical improvement, and the commission has not ruled on whether Claimant is entitled to an award for any permanent disability. Other disputes may well arise as this case proceeds toward a final decision.

It is not uncommon for there to be several hearings and orders as a workers’ compensation case makes its way to a final judgment. The Fund contendeds the order in this case is immediately appealable as an intermediate ruling that cannot be adequately reviewed later. This order certainly fits the definition of an intermediate or interlocutory order, which is “[a]n order that relates to some intermediate matter in the case; any order other than a final order.” Judgment, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). But precedent explains the APA’s exception to the final judgment rule is a narrow exception that is to be rarely applied.

The Fund’s argument for immediate review of this award was that Southeastern will not have an adequate remedy if review of this decision is delayed until the final judgment. This is so, the Funds said, because there will be no way for Southeastern to recover what the Fund will have paid for Claimant’s medical treatment and any temporary disability payments. We could not agree. The first reason we rejected this argument is that if we construed the exception to operate this broadly, it would completely swallow the final judgment rule, at least as far as workers’ compensation cases are concerned. Workers’ compensation cases frequently involve awards of temporary benefits, including medical care, followed by a period of treatment before there is a final decision adjudicating whether the injury caused any permanent disability and determining the appropriate benefits to compensate for that disability. If this order is immediately appealable, every order addressing compensability and awarding temporary benefits or medical treatment would be immediately appealable. Review of intermediate orders would cease to be a rare exception. This would thwart, rather than serve, the workers’ compensation regime’s purpose of providing a speedy, informal, and efficient avenue to recovery. Allowing temporary awards to be immediately appealable would encourage, rather than discourage, prolonged litigation and piecemeal appeals. Second, nothing suggests this case was prime for an unreasonably lengthy delay. Claimant was awarded a closed period of temporary disability payments because he was released to work within a few weeks of his injury and surgery. The commission’s order required nothing more than medical treatment by an authorized treating physician. One wonders whether this seemingly simple case might have already proceeded to a final judgment had there not been an interlocutory appeal.

Dismissed.

Brown v. Southeastern Services H.H.I. LLC (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-021-25, 6 pp.) (Blake A. Hewitt, J.) Appealed from The Workers’ Compensation Commission. Timothy Blair Killen, of Holder, Padgett, Littlejohn & Prickett, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellant; Joshua Reece Fester, of Hardeeville, for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals