New SC Supreme Court Workers’ Comp Case – Johnson v. Rent-A-Center

Jul 18, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

In Johnson v. Rent-A-Center, the South Carolina Supreme Court heard two workers’ compensation issues, affirming the Court of Appeals, presumably to clarify the law.  The issues were:

1. Whether an employee had a temporary total disability when she was medically able to be a phlebotamist, but after a reasonably thorough job search finding only jobs that combined the functions of a phlebotamist and a CNA, was unable to find suitable employment?  Supreme Court: She did have a temporary total disability.
2. Did an employee constructively refuse light duty work when he or she was never actually offered light duty work and voluntarily resigned after being offered only full duty work?  Supreme Court: constructive refusal of light duty work is not a recognized defense to total temporary disability, but even if the Court assumed it was, there was no constructive refusal of light duty work because there was no offer of light duty work.

Total Temporary Disability

Disability is defined in section 42-1-120 as an “incapacity because of injury to earn wages, which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.”  The court had previously fleshed out this section in Shealy v. Algernon Blair, Inc., 250 S.C. 106, 113, 156 S.E.2d 646, 649–50 (1967).  Shealy  places the burden on the employee to prove that

1. the employee “failed [to obtain employment] because of an injury produced handicap,” and
2. the employee “made reasonable efforts to obtain employment.”

The Supreme Court explained that under the first prong above that the jobs must exist for the employee in actuality, rather than in theory and that the jobs must be within the employee’s geographical area.

Under the second prong, the Supreme Court affirmed that the employee had made reasonable efforts to find employment on the basis of the employee’s testimony that she had put in applications at 5 hospitals and received no offers.

Constructive Refusal of Light Duty Work

The Supreme Court made clear that constructive refusal of light duty work was under current law no defense to total temporary disability, but they discussed the issue anyway.  A few important points:

• When the employee was first placed on a lift-restriction, the employer refused to let the employee return to work
• Employee left the employer because of the employer assigned her to work with the person who caused the employee’s injuries, not because she refused to do the work offered
• Refusal of light duty work was not even an issue in this claim because employee was on full release when she first returned to work with the employer

Thus, employer’s argument that the employee constructive refused light duty work fails to make sense.  If the refusal occurred at employee’s resignation, she was on release, so light duty work isn’t an issue, and, if the refusal had occurred when she couldn’t find work after a few months of employment as a CNA/Phlebotamist, it is “highly speculative” that the employer (Rent-A-Center) would have offered the employee light duty work.

The whole opinion is provided below.

The Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower

The SC workers compensation lawyers at Reeves, Aiken, & Hightower know the South Carolina worker’s compensation system and are ready to get you the recovery you deserve.  Browse our website, examine our credentials, and compare us to anyone else.  Then call us at 877-374-5999 or contact us at this link for a private consultation.

(more…)