Workers’ Compensation – Medical Benefits – Neck & Lumbar Complaints – Average Weekly Wage – Truck Driver
Brown v. Peoplease Corp. The Workers’ Compensation Commission did not err in denying the claimant lifetime medical treatment for his low back pain when the claimant’s doctors did not perform any procedures on his lower back; the only treatment given to the claimant for his lower back was the Percocet given to him at the emergency room; and the claimant could not even specifically tes[...]
Workers’ Compensation – Suitable Work – Constructive Refusal Claim – Sleeping at Work – Continuing Disability
Davis v. UniHealth Post Acute Care Even if constructively refusing employment does allow an employer to deny an employee temporary disability compensation under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-190, substantial evidence supports the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s finding that the claimant did not constructively refuse employment: On the night before the claimant allegedly slept on the job, [...]
Sparks v. Palmetto Hardwood, Inc. Even though petitioner suffered a physical injury to the brain, and even though he is permanently disabled, the Workers’ Compensation Act’s 500-week limitation still applies to him because he did not suffer “physical brain damage” within the meaning of S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C).
Crisp v. SouthCo. In this case, the Workers’ Compensation Commission left the determination of the permanency of petitioner’s injury to a later date. However, we clarify what is meant by “physical brain damage” under S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C) for guidance. Inherent in the statute’s requirement that an injury to the brain be severe is the requirement that the worker be unable[...]
Williams v. David Stafford Drywall Even though the employer admitted that some wage records may have been left out of the Form 20 computation of claimant’s wages because he could not find them, the claimant agreed that, if the employer prepared a wage statement on her behalf, she would accept it as being accurate.
Workers’ Compensation – Employment Relationship – Volunteer – Educational Program – Condition of Probation
Simmons v. SC STRONG As a condition of probation and to avoid incarceration, the claimant participated in SC STRONG – a residential, non-profit organization in which “former substance abusers, ex-convicts, and homeless adults” are provided with educational and vocational opportunities. Although the claimant was injured while working on an SC STRONG construction project, he is not en[...]
Brown v. Peoplease Corp. A Percocet prescription was the only treatment the claimant received for lower back pain; his doctors never clearly stated that his lower back pain was related to his on-the-job accident; and even the claimant’s own testimony did not specify that he experienced lumbar pain.
Fortner v. Thomas M. Evans Construction Where an injured worker was dividing his time and work duties between two companies with a close business connection, his principle employer was properly found to have been his statutory employer.
Burnette v. City of GreenvilleIt appears that the interpretation of the claimant’s 2008 MRI as showing “only a ‘minimal’ protrusion with no nerve root displacement or impingement, and comparatively, no greater pathology of any significance (if any) than the MRI of 2004 …” is the medical opinion, not of any physician, but of the single commissioner, adopted by the Workers’ Co[...]
Swilling v. Pride Masonry of Gaffney Although claimant had only worked for eight weeks before his injury, he continued to work light duty thereafter, receiving $21 per hour for 40 hours per week ($840 per week). Nevertheless, on its Form 20, the employer calculated his average weekly wage at only $742.14. The Workers’ Compensation Commission cited S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-40 in finding th[...]
Workers’ Compensation – Brain Injury – Chiari I Malformation Aggravation — Claim Denial – Insufficient Findings
Canteen v. McLeod Regional Medical CenterThe order of the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Appellate Panel is unclear whether, in reversing the single commissioner’s finding that claimant suffered a brain injury, the Appellate Panel also reversed the single commissioner’s findings that claimant suffered from a Chiari I Malformation.
Hutson v. South Carolina State Ports Authority In support of his request to have workers’ compensation benefits awarded to him in a lump sum, claimant testified about his hope to open and operate a restaurant. Claimant had no restaurant experience, and he testified that he did not know how much he could earn. This should not have served as the basis for a ruling that claimant had failed[...]
- Economy forces attorneys to get down to business
- Business Court judges trawl for customers
- Va. company's Web site did not subject business to personal jurisdiction in S.C., appeals panel rules
- Former running back from S.C. wins courtroom victory in contract dispute
- Contract – Government Contract – Qui Tam – False Claims Act
- Tort – Business Tort – Va. Computer Crimes Act – Trade Secrets
- Consumer Protection – FCRA – Auto Loan – Bank Accounting Errors
- Licenses & Permits – Beer & Wine Permit – Restrictive Covenant – Suitable Location
- Licenses & Permits – Veterinarian – Vaccine Maintenance
- State regulators look at car dealer accused of lying to customers
- Textile firm, railroad settle Graniteville train wreck lawsuit
- Subprime mortgage meltdown hits securities law
- High court justices cross the line of propriety
- High court’s term was rough on big business
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Letter From The Editor – Working from Home
- NLRB joins FTC in taking aim at non-competes
- Supreme Court leaves key internet protection untouched
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment
- My goal: Provide the information that you need now
- Case study: North Carolina courts provide guidance on scope, limitations of attorney-client privilege
- A Different Ode to Pro Bono Work
- N.C. Bar Association embraces homophobia