Mar 11, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Felony DUI, Uncategorized
Recently, trial courts are managing the flow of litigation by utilizing G.S. 20-139.1(e)(2). This statute requires that implied consent cases be continued until the chemical analyst, who analyzed the defendant’s blood, breath, or urine, can be present. This is, of course, unless the defendant waives his rights to such an analysis.
This is very important in an impaired driving case, where now, courts must consider G.S. 20-139.1(e)(2). This statute states that “the case shall be continued until the analyst can be present,” and that “the criminal case shall not be dismissed due to the failure of the analyst to appear, unless the analyst willfully fails to appear after being ordered to appear by the court.”
In State v. Joe, 723 S.E.2d 339 (2012), the court determined that the trial court may grant a defendant’s motion to dismiss under G.S. 15A-954, or the State may dismiss pursuant to G.S. 15A-931. Thus, the legislature has instructed courts to continue certain implied consent cases so that a chemical analyst may appear. However, if an analyst willfully does not appear after having been summoned by the court, the court may grant an exception to this rule.
The overall question we are confronted with here is whether it is unconstitutional for a legislature to be involved so directly with trial court matters?
Article IV, Section 13(2) of the NC Constitution allows the General Assembly to “make rules of procedure and practice for the Superior Court and District Court Divisions,” and further provides that “no rule of procedure or practice shall abridge substantive rights or abrogate or limit the right of trial by jury.” So, the General Statute is likely constitutional in that the legislature is in a proper area to make determinations.
If you or someone close to you has been charged with a DUI, or alcohol related crime in North Carolina, make sure that you are covering every possible base. G.S. 20-139.1(e)(2) can be a protection measure for many people; it ensures that the scientific tests, which is the most reliable evidence in a DUI case, must be presented through a chemical analyst. At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP., we stay up to date on the most recent North Carolina decisions so that we can represent our clients in the most efficient way possible. If you have been charged with driving under the influence, call our Charlotte, North Carolina office at 704-499-9000 for a consultation.
Mar 8, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
Recently, Lancaster County South Carolina Sheriffs Office charged a man in connection with the shooting death of a Heath Springs man. The victim was found dead on the side of the Beecher Horton Road in Heath Springs, SC.
The victim was discovered by a passerby, who found that the man was dead, likely from a gun-shot wound. The police report alleges that there was an altercation between the two men, and the body was “dumped” on Beecher Horton Road.
The assailant is currently in custody at the Lancaster County Detention Center where he is awaiting a bond hearing. However, the case is still under investigation.
If you or a someone close to you have been charged in connection with a violent crime, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. In this system criminals are innocent until proven guilty, and we will ensure that full consideration of your rights are taken. For a consultation, call our Baxter Village office in beautiful Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 8, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Uncategorized
A group of Hell’s Angels’ members in the northern South Carolina region are set to go in front of a judge and jury. The two year investigation tallied up charges for members ranging from drug trafficking, money laundering, and prostitution.
The police allege that the group president, from Lancaster, SC, directed and approved criminal activity of other members of the motorcycle gang. Police even contend that he was involved personally in some of the crimes.
If you or a loved one has received charges resulting from a criminal investigation, make sure to call on proper representation. At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP., we understand the stigma that is associated with being associated with motorcycle compatriots, and further understand that confusion can be associated with being involved in such a group. Therefore, if you have been charged with a crime because of your association with a motorcycle group, call our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999, for a consultation.
Mar 8, 2013 | DUI & DWI, Uncategorized
A Chester, SC man will likely be charged with driving under the influence after he drove his car into a pool last week. The 32-year-old driver was airlifted to Carolinas Medical Center with serious injuries after he was rescued from the pool by emergency workers.
The crash is currently under investigation as the police believe the man was under the influence. The man resided across the street from where the accident occurred.
If you or a loved one has been charged with DUI, or a related charge, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. We have experienced attorneys who are ready to fight for you. Call our BaxterVillage office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 7, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
A Chester, South Carolina teenager shot a gun into a car carrying two women and a child earlier this week. Authorities say the woman was driving a black Lincoln when the 17-year-old shot at the car four times.
Chester Police Department reported that three passengers were in the car; it does not state whether anyone was injured in the shooting. Police searched for the alleged shooter into the following day when he was apprehended with the help of the counties K-9 unit.
If you or a loved one has been charged with a violent crime, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP. We have attorneys with over 15 years of experience in the realm of criminal defense. For a consultation, you can call our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 7, 2013 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
Worker’s Compensation has been a hot topic in recent South Carolina cases due to ever-changing laws constantly altering how an injured employee may be compensated when injured “on the job.”
Take, for example, Simmons v. SC STRONG, in which the Appellant is arguing that the South Carolina’s Worker’s Compensation Commission (hereafter referred to as “Appellate Panel”) erred when it failed to find that Simmons was an employee of the SC STRONG.
The SC STRONG program is a residential, non-profit South Carolina program, in which “former substance abusers, homeless adults, and ex-convicts” are afforded educational and vocational opportunities to “get back in their feet.” Simmons became a member of SC STRONG in May of 2012, whereby he signed what is referred to as a “Resident Statement” which contained in pertinent part the following:
(1)Any remuneration which was, or in the future will be, due because of work which I have performed, or will perform, for South Carolina STRONG, I donate to South Carolina STRONG. This donation is done freely, and without duress.
(2)Any work, which I have done, or will do, for South Carolina STRONG, is done as a volunteer without any expectation of remuneration.
(3)Not withstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) above, if any governmental body determines that I am not a volunteer or cannot donate to South Carolina STRONG any remuneration which might be due to me from South Carolina STRONG, then I state that I was more than adequately paid by room, board, and services that I received from South Carolina STRONG including counseling, vocational training, entertainment, clothing, medical and dental services, education, rehabilitation, transportation, recreational and legal services, which have, and will be, provided to me by South Carolina STRONG free of charge for the duration of my time as a resident of South Carolina STRONG.” See Simmons v. SC STRONG
As a member of the SC STRONG program, Simmons was provided the opportunity to work at various construction and landscaping projects with advisers from SC STRONG. Things seemed to be looking up for Simmons until January 14, 2011, where Simmons slipped on an ice patch and fell thirty feet from the roof at the SC STRONG job-site. Simmons had multiple medical issues from the fall, specifically, a C-5 anterior superior end plate fracture and some soft tissue laceration/hematoma. The following day, Simmons was rushed back to the ER when he was complaining of foot pain and facial swelling. Simmons was provided with a type of “collar” to wear around his neck as the fractures healed, and was told that the injury was “not serious.”
A month later, on February 17, 2011, Simmons filled out a Form 50, stating his injuries while on the SC STRONG job site. He requested temporary disability benefits based on rates of the employees in similar situations.
On March 2, Hartford Underwrites Insurance Company (Hartford), SC STRONG’s insurance carrier, in turn filed a Form 51 whereby they denied Simmons as ever being one of SC STRONG’s employees. Subsequently, on March 16, Hartford amended its Form stating that Simmons did not sustain an injury that was “compensable” during the course of the alleged employment. The Respondents then filed an additional amendment further denying Simmons employment with SC STRONG.
A hearing was held on May 25, where Simmons alleged that he was provided room, board, and daily work schedules and instructions by SC STRONG; that he was in fact an employee; and that he was working for SC STRONG on January 14, when he fell from the roof. After the accident, Simmons contacted an attorney whereby he was subsequently “forced to leave SC STRONG.”
The President of SC STRONG rebutted Simmons allegations stating that “SC STRONG receives compensation for the construction services provided by its participants.” He further stated the SC STRONG model “involves a sustainable concept whereby the work training that we do for our residents is utilized as an enterprise to help generate funds that run the organization.” The President then testified that the room, board, and food provided to Simmons as an SC STRONG participant was not in lieu of wages. The employees apparently are not allowed to seek independent work while enrolled in the program; yet they are not permitted to have an expectation of wages.
Thus, the conclusion of the hearing held that Simmons was not entitled to worker’s compensation benefits because he was considered a “volunteer” worker and not an “employee of SC STRONG.”
Accordingly, if Simmons had been considered an employee of SC STRONG, he would have been entitled to the temporary disability he requested. Simmons then appealed the decision. Ultimately, the case turned on the standard of review that the Commissioners are required to use.
The standard used was found in Schuler v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op, Inc.and found that “The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual question that determines the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.” Shuler v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op., Inc., 374 S.C. 516, 520, 649 S.E.2d 98, 100 (Ct. App. 2007), “When an issue involves jurisdiction, the appellate court can take its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “In determining jurisdictional questions, doubts of jurisdiction will be resolved in favor of inclusion of employees within workers’ compensation coverage rather than exclusion.” Id.
Moreover, under the Worker’s Compensation Act, an employee is defined as “every person engaged in an employment under any appointment, contract of hire, or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, oral or written, . . . whether lawfully or unlawfully employed…”S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-130 (Supp. 2012).
Under Schuler the court held that if a person is found to be an employee, then they have a right to payment for the services they provide. Shuler v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op, Inc., 385 S.C. 470, 473, 684 S.E.2d 765, 767 (2009)
The Court of Appeals went back and forth using the aforementioned language to determine whether or not Simmons was considered an employee or a “volunteer.” Pursuant to the Resident Agreement, Simmons agreed that he was a volunteer and thus owed no compensation for his work aside for the room and board discussed above. The court found that the “working experience” Simmons enjoyed was not for expected compensation, but rather Simmons was “performing services as a volunteer in a rehabilitative program to improve his skills and avoid incarceration.”
Simmons attempted to use Wilson v. Georgetown County to support his position that South Carolina does not require a particular form of payment to establish an employee/employer relationship. Wilson v. Georgetown County, 316 S.C. 92, 447 S.E.2d 841 (1994). In Wilson¸ the court held that Wilson was an employee of the County because his work was specifically for the benefit of that county, and Wilson was under the control and direction of the Clerk of Court.
However, the Court of Appeals finds the Wilson case distinguishable because Simmons has admitted that he chose to enroll in SC STRONG in lieu of incarceration, and Wilson was simply asking to not sit as a juror due to religious beliefs.
Thus, due to Simmons admittance of the foregoing facts, the Appellant Panel’s finding that Simmons is not an employee of SC STRONG is affirmed and Simmons is denied all workers’ compensation coverage.
After being injured at work, many of our clients are initially afraid of losing their jobs and are not sure if they even want to pursue a claim. In these difficult times, these are good people in tough financial situations that need help. Attorney Robert J. Reeves has practiced workers’ compensation law for over 23 years and knows how to protect your rights as well as your job. As a former workers’ compensation insurance defense lawyer, he knows what a carrier needs to quickly evaluate your claim and get your benefits started. Contact us today at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999
