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
Mar 7, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Uncategorized
Three men have been arrested by the York County, South Carolina Sheriff’s Office whom they say caused a February power outage at a York Electric sub station. However, the K-9 unit led deputies to a home in Clover where two men were found.
Detectives proceeded to search the home, and seized evidence related to several thefts. It is also reported that detectives received information at this search which helped them to apprehend a Sharon, SC man. Wire connectors and four large batteries were found in the man’s home.
It was alleged by the deputies that the men were involved in a string of thefts throughout York County, and the damage is estimated at around $20,000. The investigation has been going on since December of last year.
If you or someone close to you has been implicated in a crime, be sure to have proper representation. Call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP or a consultation. Our Baxter Village office telephone number is 803-548-4444, and toll-free at 877-374-5999.
Mar 7, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
A Fort Mill, SC man has been arrested after neighbors called the police regarding suspicious activity occurring outside of an abandoned house. The man was charged with possession of the drug called bath salts when the police found a jar on the man containing the substance. Police report that the man was not making much sense of what he was saying, and they suspected he was under the influence.
Not much is known about “bath salts”; however, they have been known to cause a high to those who use them. The type of symptoms involved with the use of bath salts is headaches, heart palpitations, paranoia, and hallucinations among others. Bath salts can be sniffed, smoked, ingested, and even injected.
Because not much is known about the drug, there is also not much known about how to criminalize the use of such a substance. Therefore, if you or a family member has been charged with the use of bath salts or any other controlled substance, it is very important that you are adequately represented in order to determine how to classify such a charge. For a consultation, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP at 803-548-4444, or toll-free at 877-374-4444.
Mar 7, 2013 | Criminal Defense, Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Uncategorized
According to the York County Sheriff’s Office, A Clover High School student has been implicated in the sale of prescription pills, when a he allegedly sold a female two Adderall pills. Also, last week three teens were arrested for allegedly planning to deal drugs at the school. Adderall is a controlled substance used to treat attention deficit disorder.
The police further found text messages which they state was to arrange the sale of pills. The student was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.
Student searches are governed by the following South Carolina Statutes:
SECTION 59-63-1110. Consent to search person or his effects.
Any person entering the premises of any school in this State shall be deemed to have consented to a reasonable search of his person and effects.
SECTION 59-63-1120. Searches by school administrators or officials with or without probable cause.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, school administrators and officials may conduct reasonable searches on school property of lockers, desks, vehicles, and personal belongings such as purses, book-bags, wallets, and satchels with or without probable cause.
SECTION 59-63-1130. Searches by principals or their designees.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, school principals or their designees may conduct reasonable searches of the person and property of visitors on school premises.
SECTION 59-63-1140. Strip searches prohibited.
No school administrator may conduct a strip search.
However, notwithstanding these laws, New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 328 is a U.S. Supreme Court case that states that administrators at public high schools must receive training in the “reasonableness” standard under existing case law, and must be informed as to the procedures established as to how to conduct a school search.
If you or a loved one has been subject to a search either on or off school property, it is very important to ensure that such search was reasonable. Call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP 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
In the workers’ compensation appeal, Williams v. Stafford Drywall, the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed questionable evidence of plaintiff’s compensation rate and medical causation testimony. The entire opinion can be downloaded here, Williams v. David Stafford Drywall.
Williams worked for Stafford Drywall as a drywall finisher in the Charleston area. While on the job, she was injured when she fell off a ladder, falling 12-14 feet. In her initial Form 50, she claimed injury to her left ankle bone, pelvis, right foot, left foot, right hip, and left hip. Six months later, she amended the form 50 to claim injury to her left hip, left leg, pelvis, right leg, back, brain, head, and left foot. Eighteen months later, she claimed injury to her left hip, left leg, pelvis, right leg, back, brain, head, left foot, and her bowels and bladder.
The single workers’ compensation commissioner found that she was totally and permanently disabled and awarded her lifetime medical treatment for the injuries to her back, left leg, and pelvis. Williams appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Panel. The Appellate Panel affirmed the single commissioner’s order in its entirety.
Williams then appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals claiming that the Appellate Panel erred in not finding a higher compensation rate, not finding that her neurogenic bladder issue related to her on the job injury, and not finding that she was not partially paraplegic.
The most interesting part of this appeal is the comp rate. Williams like many small construction business employees was not employed every day or every week. Section 42-1-40 of the South Carolina code provides:
[a]verage weekly wage’ must be calculated by taking the total wages paid for the last four quarters . . . divided by fifty-two or by the actual number of weeks for which wages were paid, whichever is less.
It appears evidence was not presented on how many weeks Williams actually worked. The evidence presented on the compensation rate was limited to the employer’s Form 20 (here’s a blank form 20) and some testimony form both sides. Plaintiff did not submit documentary evidence, e.g. pay stubs, to prove the number of weeks worked. However, there was testimony from both employer and employee that Williams did not work every week.
The statute clearly provides that the usual method for calculating the comp rate is to divide the pay for the year before the injury by the lesser of 52 or the number of weeks worked, but the workers’ compensation commissioner rather than making a best guess as to the number of weeks worked, just divided by 52. While an argument could be made that dividing by 52 would provide the more reasonable approximation of future income earning potential, that was not what was being done explicitly. The Appellate Panel let the decision on how to calculate the comp rate stand without question, and the South Carolina Court of Appeals found substantial evidence to leave it alone.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the finding that the plaintiff’s neurogenic bladder problems were not medically caused by the accident for the purposes of workers’ compensation. The bladder issue in this case was not raised until over a year after the accident and claim were filed, but there was medical testimony that the bladder condition was caused by the accident. The Court of Appeals recited that the single commissioner and Appellate Panel have discretion in weighing the evidence, and need not abide by expert testimony when there is other competent evidence on point. Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 23, 716 S.E.2d 123, 126 (Ct. App. 2011). This is another example of the wide latitude the Workers’ Compensation Commission has in deciding cases and the relative lack of court oversight.
If you, or someone you know has been involved in an accident on the job, contact the offices of Reeves, Aiken, and Hightower, LLP to have your South Carolina claim evaluated. With over 23 years experiences, Mr. Reeves has been exposed to numerous work-related cases in which Worker’s Compensation was to be applied and is competent to handle your case. Call today at 803-548-4444 or toll free at 877-374-5999
Mar 7, 2013 | Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Felony Drug Possession, Uncategorized
Last week a narcotics investigation resulted in the closing down of a methamphetamine lab in Rock Hill. According to the York County Multi-jurisdictional Drug Enforcement Unit, this is the third bust in two weeks. There are reports that meth was being purchased at the home.
When police searched the home, they reported to have found meth, pills, digital scales and plastic bags. According to the report, police seized approximately 500 grams of methamphetamine, Darvacet, Adderall, and Hydrocodone. The arrestees are being held at the Moss Justice Detention Center in York County.
If you have been charged with a drug related crime, it is important that you get competent council as soon as possible. The complications of the legal system can most adequately be navigated by a trained professional who knows the law. Call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP, as we are here to assist you with your legal problem. You can reach our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.
