SC Workers’ Compensation – Medical Causation Opinions

Jan 26, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

This recent SC Supreme Court case illustrates the required elements for medical causation opinions in workers’ compensation cases. Not only must a treating or consulting physician state a resulting condition is causally related to an accident but also must state that opinion “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.” If those magical words are not used, a claim can be lost. And, the burden of proof is always on the claimant. Better be sure your attorney is experienced in workers’ compensation cases and knows what they are doing.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Alexander Michau, Employee, Claimant, Appellant,

v.

Georgetown County, Self-Insured Employer, through, South Carolina Counties Workers Compensation Trust, Defendants, Respondents.

Appeal from the South Carolina
Workers Compensation Commission

Opinion No. 27064
Heard October 6, 2011 – Filed November 21, 2011

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Raymond C. Fischer and William Stuart Duncan, both of Georgetown, for Appellant.

Kirsten L. Barr and Jamie C. Guerrero, both of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents.

CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: Appellant, Alexander Michau (Employee), appeals a ruling by the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission (Commission) denying Employee’s claim for repetitive trauma injuries to his shoulders.  Specifically, Employee challenges the Commission’s interpretation and application of section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code.  Because the Commission erred in admitting a medical opinion that was not stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as required under section 42-1-172, we reverse and remand.

FACTS/ PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Employee alleges he sustained a compensable repetitive trauma injury to both of his shoulders on September 29, 2008, and reported it to his supervisor that same day.  Prior to this date, Employee did not report any work-related problems with his arms to Georgetown County (Employer) although he sought outside treatment.  Employee seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and an award of temporary total disability benefits.

Employee is in his sixties and has twice worked for Employer.  When he returned to work for Employer in 1988, he was initially employed as a truck driver, but eventually switched to operating a motor grader, a device used to grade and smooth dirt and gravel on roads.  Employee usually worked ten hours per day, spending about eight hours actually operating the motor grader.

Employee testified he operated two types of motor graders during his tenure with Employer.  The original motor graders had manual levers while newer models were equipped with hydraulics.  After Employer purchased the newer model, Employee operated it for approximately three years without any incident, admitting that “it was a good machine.”[1]  Employee did not file a workers’ compensation claim until he began operating the new, non-vibrating machine, but he testified that the old machine did vibrate.

In 1997, Employee first sought medical treatment with Dr. Benjamin Lawless for problems relating to his arms and shoulders. Dr. Lawless’s medical reports indicate that Employee complained of arthritis-related symptoms involving pain and swelling in his hands and redness in his joints.[2]  In August 2005, Dr. Lawless referred Employee for a total body bone scan, which also found evidence of rheumatoid arthritis.  Consequently, he referred Employee to a rheumatologist, Dr. Mitch Twinning, who examined Employee on May 24, 2006, and diagnosed him with rheumatoid arthritis.  Employee continued treatment with Dr. Lawless for this disease until June 2006.

On December 1, 2006, Dr. Michael Bohan, an orthopaedic specialist, began treating Employee and reported that x-ray data of the left shoulder “show[ed] rather significant degenerative arthritis of the glenohumeral joint as well as the AC joint.”  Employee eventually underwent surgery on his left shoulder, and on November 21, 2008, Dr. Bohan issued a letter to Employee’s attorney stating:

I do believe within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that these repetitive work activities over the years of his shoulders [sic] have resulted in his severe osteoarthritis of both shoulders.

(emphasis added).

Seeking independent verification of Employee’s claim, Employer engaged Dr. Chris Tountas, a specialist in the treatment of arthritis, to perform a medical evaluation of Employee.  Dr. Tountas opined:

Based on the history, physical examination, objective findings, and review of available records, it is my opinion that [Employee] has had a long history of arthritis involving multiple joints with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis . . . . There is no indication from the job description or his employment that would relate any of his shoulder problems to his work driving a road grader.  In my opinion this is a natural progression of a preexisting condition.  The preexisting condition in my opinion would ultimately result in a need for treatment and the recent surgery.

(emphasis added).

The Commission denied Employee’s claim on the grounds that “the greater weight of the medical evidence reflects [Employee’s] upper extremity and shoulder problems are related to pre-existing osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis and not caused or aggravated by his employment with Georgetown County.”  In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered all of the medical evidence including Dr. Tountas’s report.  Employee disputes the admissibility of Dr. Tountas’s report under South Carolina Code section 42-1-172 because it was not stated “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  Employee argues that without this evidence, the remaining competent evidence would support Employee’s claim of sustaining a compensable repetitive trauma injury.

ISSUES

I.   Whether section 42-1-172(C) governs the admissibility of evidence in a workers’ compensation claim.

II.  Whether the Commission properly construed and applied section 42-1-172 in admitting Dr. Tountas’s statement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs appeals from the decisions of the Commission.  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380 (Supp. 2010); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 134–35, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981).  Under the APA, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but it may reverse when the decision is affected by an error of law.  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5).

ANALYSIS

                           I.  Admissibility of Evidence under section 42-1-172

Employer contends that South Carolina Code section 42-1-172 does not govern the admissibility of evidence in a workers’ compensation claim involving a repetitive trauma injury.  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172 (Supp. 2010).  We disagree.

Specifically, Employer argues that admissibility of evidence in this case is governed solely by section 1-23-330, which provides that “in contested cases . . . [i]rrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-330 (2005).  However, Employer cites no supporting authorities for this interpretation.

In our view, section 1-23-330 establishes a minimum standard that applies generally, but not exclusively.  On the other hand, section 42-1-172(C) expressly creates an additional heightened standard for repetitive trauma injury cases.  Specifically, it requires “medical evidence,” in the form of “expert opinion or testimony [to be] stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172(C).  Indeed, section 42-1-172(C) commands that the “[c]ompensability of a repetitive trauma injury must be determined only under the provisions of this statute.”  Id. (emphasis added); see also Murphy v. Corning, 393 S.C. 77, 84, 710 S.E.2d 454, 458 (Ct. App. 2011) (“[T]he compensability of a repetitive trauma injury must be determined by the Commission under the provisions of [section] 42-1-172 . . . . [and] the Commission erred by failing to address [section] 42-1-172.”).

Thus, in repetitive trauma injury cases such as this, section 42-1-172 governs the admissibility of medical evidence.

   II.  Commission’s Construction and Application of section 42-1-172

Employee argues that the Commission incorrectly construed section 42-1-172 by admitting Dr. Tountas’s medical evidence, as it was not stated “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”[3]  We agree.

Section 42-1-172 provides:

An injury is not considered a compensable repetitive trauma injury unless a commissioner makes a specific finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence of a causal connection that is established by medical evidence . . . . As used in this section, “medical evidence” means expert opinion or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that is offered by a licensed and qualified medical physician.

S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172.

It is clear the plain reading of the statute requires that “opinion or testimony” must be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  Id.  In contrast, “documents, records, or other material” is not similarly modified.  Id.  As this Court has recognized, the “use of the word ‘or’ in a statute ‘is a disjunctive particle that marks an alternative.'”  K & A Acquisition Group, LLC v. Island Pointe, LLC, 383 S.C. 563, 580, 682 S.E.2d 252, 261 (2009).  Here, the legislature intentionally used “or” after a series of commas to expand the definition of “medical evidence” beyond “opinion or testimony.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172.  This Court has said that words should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation.”  State v. Sweat, 386 S.C. 339, 350, 688 S.E.2d 569, 575 (2010) (citation omitted).  Because the statute does not require that “documents, records, or other material” be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” we will not expand its plain meaning or interpolate this requirement.[4]  Id. 

Consequently, we must address whether Dr. Tountas’s statement constitutes an “opinion or testimony” that must be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-172.  Employer contends that Dr. Tountas’s letter represents “documents, records, or other material” that need not be stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The Commission agreed with Employer and pointed out that a contrary interpretation and application of the statute would require this Court to ignore eleven years of Employee’s prior medical history and reports merely because they do not contain the magic phrase “within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  We note that Employee does not challenge the other admitted medical evidence, and therefore the only issue we decide here is the admissibility of Dr. Tountas’s statement.

While we recognize that medical “records” will often also contain physicians’ opinions, in this instance, Dr. Tountas was not Employee’s treating physician, and Employer specially sought out Dr. Tountas to evaluate Employee and issue a medical “opinion” to decide the compensability of Employee’s claim.  Under these facts, Dr. Tountas’s letter does not constitute “documents, records, or other material,” but is an “opinion or testimony” that must be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”  Id. § 42-1-172.

In the alternative, Employer also argues that if Dr. Tountas’s statement constitutes an “opinion or testimony,” the requirement of section 42-1-172 applies only to claimants and not defendants.  The statutory language makes no such distinction, so we decline to adopt this forced construction.  See Sweat, 386 S.C. at 350, 688 S.E.2d at 575 (finding words should be given “their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statute’s operation.”) (citation omitted).

Thus, we reverse the Commission’s decision to admit Dr. Tountas’s medical opinion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand the case to the Commission to decide whether the remaining competent evidence supports Employee’s claim of sustaining a compensable, repetitive trauma injury.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

[1] Employee elaborated further, “I mean, it was good.  I mean, I had a steering wheel that, that I pulled to me, and I had my levers on each side.  It was right there.  I mean, it was just—it was just easy as—almost as eating ice cream.”

[2] In June 2001, Employee complained of arthritic symptoms in his arms, and Dr. Lawless’s medical report indicates he suspected Employee suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome.  In July and November 2001, Employee followed up with Dr. Lawless, again complaining of pain in his arms and hands.

[3] Specifically, the Commission concluded:

Subsection (C) merely defines what medical evidence is necessary to establish causation of a repetitive trauma claim.  This provision of the Act could not have been intended to require every medical report submitted by the parties be stated within a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

[4] Legislative history also supports this interpretation of section 42-1-172.  Had the General Assembly intended to require “documents, records, or other material” be “stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty,” it would have left the April 4, 2007 amended and adopted Senate version of this section intact.  This version unambiguously provides:

As used in this title, “medical evidence” means expert opinion, expert testimony, documents, or other material that is offered or stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by a licensed health care provider.

S. 332, reprinted in 4 Senate Journal, South Carolina Regular Session, 2007, at 1662.  However, the legislature did not adopt this language.

SC Workers’ Compensation – Mandatory Mediation Update

Jan 26, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

Commission Moving Forward With Proposed Mediation Mandate

Last week, the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission confirmed they will propose regulations to mandate mediation in some cases with the purpose of establishing a defined mechanism to resolve disputes without the necessity of a hearing. This measure also allows a commissioner to order the same of any disputed claim The idea was first introduced in Fall 2011 during meetings of the Mediation Committee October 28 and December 2.  To view the Proposed Mediation Regulation (Reg. 67-1801) and Forms 21, 50, 51 and 70, click here.
A related article recently published by Work Comp Central can be viewed by clicking here.
The timeline for the proposed regulations is as follows:

February 24, 2012 Regulation will be published in the State Register
March 26, 2012Deadline for any comments
March 26, 2012Called meeting of Full Commission for approval of regulation language
May 29, 2012Public hearing on regulation
May 29, 2012Called meeting of full Commission for approval
May 30, 2012Submission to General Assembly

This update provided by SC Workers’ Compensation Educational Association website posting. We acknowledge and thank the Association for their service.

At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our lawyers are experienced workers’ compensation attorneys.  Robert J. Reeves is a former Registered Nurse (RN) who has actually treated patients with the same type of serious injuries he now represents in workers’ compensation cases.  Both Robert J. Reeves and Arthur K. Aiken are former insurance defense attorneys who know how to anticipate and prepare for defenses and insurance company tactics.  During our twenty-two (22) years each of practicing law, we have successfully handled virtually every type of workers’ compensation injury, including neck, back, shoulder, knee accidents, closed head / brain injury, herniated disks, bulging disks, diskectomy surgery, fusion procedures, arthroscopy, automobile accidents on the job, psychological / post traumatic stress, permanent and total disability claims, and wrongful death. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your particular case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us for a private, confidential consultation. www.rjrlaw.com

SC Workers’ Compensation – Employee or Independent Contractor

Jan 26, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

This recent SC Supreme Court case further illustrates the distinction between an “employee” as opposed to an “independent contractor.” The importance of the distinction is whether or not workers’ compensation benefits would apply. Oftentimes, employers will try to characterize an employee as an independent contractor in an attempt to avoid paying benefits. This is where an experienced workers’ compensation lawyer will have to fight to first establish jurisdiction and then pursue other benefits available under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Better be sure your lawyer knows what they are doing.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Robert Pikaart, Respondent,

v.

A & A Taxi, Inc. and South Carolina Uninsured Employers’ Fund, Appellants.

Appeal From Horry County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 27003
Heard April 6, 2011 – Filed July 11, 2011

AFFIRMED

Brown W. Johnson, of Clarke, Johnson, Peterson & McLean, and Samuel Thompson Brunson, both of Florence, for Appellants.

Charles Vance Leonard, of Harris & Leonard, P.A., of Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

JUSTICE BEATTY:  A & A Taxi, Inc. and the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Uninsured Employers’ Fund (collectively, Appellants) appeal from a circuit court order finding Robert A. Pikaart was an employee of A & A Taxi, Inc. at the time he was injured in two automobile accidents and that he was entitled to certain workers’ compensation benefits.  Appellants contend Pikaart was an independent contractor, not an employee; therefore, the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission has no jurisdiction in this matter.  They further argue the circuit court improperly made findings of fact that did not bear on the limited issue of jurisdiction that was before it.  We affirm.

I.  FACTS

A & A Taxi, Inc. is a taxi company located in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.  It was formed by Romeo A. Liriani, the company’s owner and president.

Pikaart had over twenty years of experience in the taxi business at the time this action arose.  Pikaart was involved in two unrelated automobile accidents in Horry County on October 23, 2004 and January 2, 2005 while performing errands for A & A Taxi.[1]  In April of 2005, Liriani and Pikaart parted ways.  According to Pikaart, he was terminated after he advised Liriani that he would need surgery as a result of his injuries.

Pikaart sought workers’ compensation coverage for alleged injuries he sustained to his neck, back, arms, hands, and fingers.  A & A Taxi denied responsibility for Pikaart’s claims on the basis Pikaart was an independent contractor, not an employee.  A & A Taxi did not carry workers’ compensation coverage, so the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Uninsured Employers’ Fund was made a party to the action.

A hearing was held before a commissioner of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Pikaart testified that he had been employed by Liriani as A & A Taxi’s office manager at the time of his accidents.  He outlined his duties, which included the following:  making a schedule for all of the taxis; implementing a $10 dispatch fee all drivers were required to pay A & A Taxi for dispatch services, which saved the company some overhead costs; processing the trip vouchers that were submitted for every taxi; implementing a rotation system for high-paying fares and a method for selling accounts receivable to provide immediate cash flow; hiring and firing drivers for Liriani; finding independent cabs to take calls whenever A & A Taxi was fully booked; overseeing vehicle maintenance for the taxis; filling in as a dispatcher and a driver whenever needed; and communicating with insurance companies, City Hall, and others on behalf of A & A Taxi.

In contrast, Liriani testified Pikaart was “never” the manager of A & A Taxi.  Liriani stated Pikaart leased five cabs and three certificates (or medallions) from him, and that Pikaart leased two medallions from other individuals and operated all five of those cabs as his own business.  He stated Pikaart never performed any duties for him; rather, he just controlled the five cabs he leased.

The commissioner found Pikaart was not an employee of A & A Taxi, but was instead operating his own taxi business.  The commissioner concluded the Commission did not have jurisdiction over this case because no employer-employee relationship existed.  An Appellate Panel of the Commission upheld the commissioner’s order.

Upon review, the circuit court, noting it could take its own view of the preponderance of the evidence on jurisdictional matters, determined Pikaart was the manager of A & A Taxi and therefore an employee.  The circuit court stated Pikaart “ran the entire [A & A Taxi] operation and was present every day” and that his “managerial duties [were] extensive.”  The circuit court noted “it is clear [Pikaart’s] overall task was to increase revenue for the company,” and “[h]is injuries occurred when furthering the business of [A & A Taxi].”  Citing Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 S.C. 589, 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002), the circuit court found A & A Taxi exercised extensive control over Pikaart as well as the other workers.  The circuit court additionally found Pikaart was entitled to certain workers’ compensation benefits.

Appellants appealed.  Pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR, we certified this case from the Court of Appeals.

II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) establishes the standard for judicial review of workers’ compensation decisions.  Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 386 S.C. 534, 689 S.E.2d 615 (2010); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981).  Under the APA, this Court can reverse or modify the decision of the Commission where the substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence considering the record as a whole.  Pierre, 386 S.C. at 540, 689 S.E.2d at  618; Transp. Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427, 699 S.E.2d 687, 689-90 (2010) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(d), (e) (Supp. 2009)).

An award under workers’ compensation law is not authorized unless an employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the injury for which a claim is made.  Crim v. Decorator’s Supply, 291 S.C. 193, 352 S.E.2d 520 (Ct. App. 1987); McLeod v. Piggly Wiggly Carolina Co., 280 S.C. 466, 313 S.E.2d 38 (Ct. App. 1984); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-130 (Supp. 2010) (defining “employee” under workers’ compensation law to include “every person engaged in an employment under any appointment, contract of hire, or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, oral or written . . . .”).

The question whether a claimant is an employee or an independent contractor is a jurisdictional issue.  Wilkinson ex rel. Wilkinson v. Palmetto State Transp. Co., 382 S.C. 295, 676 S.E.2d 700 (2009); Vines v. Champion Bldg. Prods., 315 S.C. 13, 431 S.E.2d 585 (1993).  Where the disputed issue concerns jurisdiction, this Court may take its own view of the preponderance of the facts upon which jurisdiction is dependent.  Wilson v. Georgetown County, 316 S.C. 92, 447 S.E.2d 841 (1994); Spivey v. D.G. Constr. Co., 321 S.C. 19, 467 S.E.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1996).

It is South Carolina’s policy to resolve jurisdictional questions in favor of inclusion of employees within workers’ compensation coverage rather than exclusion.  Shuler v. Tri-County Elec. Co-op, 385 S.C. 470, 684 S.E.2d 765 (2009); Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 645 S.E.2d 424 (2007); Pilgrim v. Eaton, 391 S.C. 38, 703 S.E.2d 241 (Ct. App. 2010).

Although we may take our own view of the preponderance of the evidence on matters affecting jurisdiction, this broader scope of review does not require this Court to ignore the findings of the Commission, which was in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.  Paschal v. Price, Op. No. 26958 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Apr. 4, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 12 at 44); Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 535 S.E.2d 438 (2000).

III.  LAW/ANALYSIS

On appeal, Appellants contend the circuit court erred in (1) finding Pikaart was an employee of A & A Taxi, rather than an independent contractor, and (2) making findings of fact numbered one through nine because they do not relate to the limited issue of jurisdiction that was before the court.

A.      Employee Versus Independent Contractor    

Under South Carolina law, the primary consideration in determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists is whether the purported employer has the right to control the employee in the performance of the work and the manner in which it is done. Kilgore Group, Inc. v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Comm’n, 313 S.C. 65, 437 S.E.2d 48 (1993).  “The test is not the actual control exercised, but whether there exists the right and authority to control and direct the particular work or undertaking.”  Id. at 68, 437 S.E.2d at 49.[2]

The four principal factors indicating the right of control are (1) direct evidence of the right to, or exercise of, control; (2) the method of payment; (3) the furnishing of equipment; and (4) the right to fire.  South Carolina Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Ray Covington Realtors, Inc., 318 S.C. 546, 459 S.E.2d 302 (1995); Chavis v. Watkins, 256 S.C. 30, 180 S.E.2d 648 (1971).

In Wilkinson, this Court announced a return to our jurisprudence that evaluates the four factors with equal force in both directions to provide an even-handed and balanced approach.  Wilkinson, 382 S.C. at 300, 676 S.E.2d at 702.  This overruled the analytical framework previously set forth in Dawkins v. Jordan, 341 S.C. 434, 534 S.E.2d 700 (2000) on the basis it unduly weighted the factors in a manner that favored a finding of employment by providing the existence of any single factor was virtually proof of an employment relationship, while contrary evidence as to any one factor was only mildly persuasive evidence of contractorship.  Id.

In the current matter, the circuit court found the case of Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co., 349 S.C. 589, 564 S.E.2d 110 (2002) to be controlling.  In Nelson, we considered the jurisdictional question whether a taxi driver, who had been murdered while driving his cab, was an employee or an independent contractor of Yellow Cab.  We noted there was a split of authority as to the status of a taxi driver who leases a taxi under a per diem payment agreement and keeps his fares and tips as compensation, but observed that the majority of cases hold that under such circumstances the taxi driver is an employee by virtue of the cab company’s exercise of control.  Id. at 595, 564 S.E.2d at 113.

Wilkinson expressly overruled Nelson to the extent it applied the Dawkins test, but this does not alter the fundamental principle established in Nelson regarding the taxi driver’s employment status.  Although the Nelson Court recited the Dawkins test, as a practical matter, it did not rely upon the presence of only one factor as being determinative of an employment relationship.  Rather, it considered in detail all four factors and found by a preponderance of the evidence that these factors, on balance, were indicative of an employment relationship.  Therefore, the result in Nelson would be the same under the approach announced in Wilkinson.

Similarly, in the current appeal, the circuit court recited the Dawkins test in passing,[3] but it did not rely upon the presence of only one factor.  Instead, the court evaluated all four factors before finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an employment relationship existed between Pikaart and A & A Taxi.

Pikaart maintains that “[i]t is clear when considering the Nelson factors, even when using the approach approved in [Wilkinson], that [he] was an employee of [A & A Taxi] and the decision of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.”  We agree.

Appellants note in their brief that a number of former drivers testified that Pikaart was the general manager of A & A Taxi and also testified about the degree of control A & A Taxi exerted over them.  Appellants concede:  “If one of those drivers had been injured, it is clear that under the Nelson case, they would have been considered employees.”  Nevertheless, Appellants argue “those drivers’ positions at A & A Taxi, Inc. differed from that of the Claimant, Robert Pikaart.”

Appellants deny that Pikaart was ever A & A Taxi’s manager, but argue that, even if he was the manager, “he was not injured in that role.  He was allegedly injured while driving a cab.”  The fact that Pikaart was employed as the company’s manager (which included duties such as driving a taxi and performing dispatching services when needed), as opposed to being employed solely as a taxi driver, does not negate his status as an employee, and Appellants have pointed to no specific evidence to support its assertion that being a manager somehow invalidated his employment status.

Appellants further contend Pikaart was merely leasing five cabs from Liriani and operated those cabs for his own independent business.  As in Nelson, the fact that Pikaart leased his cabs from A & A Taxi and split the fares with A & A Taxi to receive compensation is typical for the industry and is not determinative that he ran his own taxi company within Liriani’s taxi company.  As noted in Nelson, the majority of jurisdictions considering the question have held that such an arrangement constitutes an employment, not an independent contractor, arrangement.  It is clear from the record, and Appellants conceded as much at oral argument, that Pikaart did perform tasks for the benefit of, and on behalf of, A & A Taxi, not strictly for himself.  Further, Pikaart took nothing with him when he parted ways with A & A Taxi, and there is no evidence he operated his own independent business.

Appellants next assert that Pikaart has started his own cab company, Red Top Cabs, since parting ways with A & A Taxi.  However, Pikaart’s activities after leaving A & A Taxi are not relevant to Pikaart’s employment status at the time of the accidents at issue here.

Appellants also state Pikaart has been in the taxi business for over twenty years and during that time he never purchased workers’ compensation insurance for his drivers, but he now wants compensation for himself.  This point likewise is not relevant to the jurisdictional question of whether Pikaart was an employee or an independent contractor with A & A Taxi at the time of his accidents.  Appellants contend this information goes to credibility.  But by the same token, Liriani admittedly has never provided workers’ compensation coverage to anyone working for him, either, so he is in the same position as Pikaart in this regard.

Although Appellants did not individually address the four factors, we now examine some of the pertinent evidence as it relates to the four individual factors in evaluating the right of control.

(1)  Direct Evidence of the Right to Control

The circuit court noted the workers at A & A Taxi needed advance permission to be taken off of the work schedule, they were not allowed to give out their own phone numbers for business, and all calls were required to go through the dispatcher.

Pikaart, in particular, testified that Liriani required all calls to go through the dispatcher, and he was not allowed to give out his own cell phone number, name, or business card.  Liriani controlled the advertising and provided business cards for the workers to use.  Further, workers were expected to respond to the dispatcher when called and to make trips as directed.  Pikaart said that he would call the dispatcher if he were out of the cab for any reason, such as to get something to eat or use the restroom.

Pikaart primarily performed managerial tasks for Liriani and A & A Taxi, but he also filled in as a dispatcher and he drove cabs when needed.   In fact, both of the accidents he is seeking compensation for occurred while he was driving vehicles owned by A & A Taxi and running errands on behalf of the company.  Although Pikaart had some discretion as manager and, in fact, came up with several business concepts for the company, such as the $10 dispatch fee, it is clear from the record that these were all in furtherance of A & A Taxi’s business, and Pikaart did not implement any substantial changes without Liriani’s consent.  We find this factor weighs in favor of an employment relationship.

(2)  Furnishing of Equipment

The circuit court found A & A Taxi furnished the cabs, provided maintenance, and also procured insurance and permits for all cars.  It also advertised the company’s services and provided business cards and dispatching services, as well as a common paint scheme with the “A & A Taxi” name on all of the cabs.  The circuit court noted A & A Taxi also provided a phone number, customers, vouchers, and rules to abide by, and drivers were not allowed to give out personal business cards or contact numbers.

These findings are all supported by the record, as the former workers with A & A Taxi testified that the company provided most of the necessary equipment and services.  As to Pikaart in particular, he testified that he did not own the dispatch service and equipment, phone numbers, cabs, or anything else while he was working for A & A Taxi, and he took nothing with him when he left.  He further testified that Liriani purchased the city business license.  We find this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding an employment relationship.

(3)  Method of Payment

The circuit court found the drivers in this case were allowed to keep fifty percent of their fares, which was similar to the situation inNelson.  The circuit court noted Pikaart received payment much the same as the employee in Nelson, except that he derived his income from five cabs, rather than from one, and he paid a weekly rate to the employer instead of a daily rate.  The circuit court specifically found that Pikaart was not operating his own business within the A & A Taxi business.

Pikaart testified that he was never given a W-2 form or a Form 1099 when he worked at A & A Taxi.  However, he said he listed A & A Taxi as his employer on his tax returns.  Further, Pikaart testified that he “derived all of [his] living from A&A Taxi.”  Liriani confirmed that he never provided Pikaart with either a W-2 form or a Form 1099.

The parties operated primarily on a cash basis, and it appears this was intended to avoid reporting requirements on both sides.  Due to the lack of records in this regard, the evidence does not preponderate in favor of either party and we consider this a neutral factor.

(4)  Right to Fire

As noted by the circuit court, several of the witnesses testified that those working at A & A Taxi could be fired for a variety of reasons.  For example, Charles Michael Clark, a former driver and dispatcher for A & A Taxi, testified that he had been terminated by Liriani.  Clark stated workers could be terminated for a variety of reasons, including failing to pick up a customer or not showing up, drinking on the job, having too many wrecks, making a false application, carrying a weapon, stealing, or cheating on trip sheets, etc.

Pikaart testified that he was fired after he told Liriani that he would need surgery as a result of his accidents.  Pikaart stated Liriani would sometimes fire people, but would on occasion direct him or a dispatcher to do the firing.

Upon questioning, Liriani adamantly denied that he could terminate any of the workers at A & A Taxi.  He was asked if he could terminate them under various extreme scenarios, such as if they didn’t show up for work ten days in a row, or if they had ten wrecks in a row, and he said “absolutely not.”  Liriani even stated that if one of the drivers “blows up the Myrtle Beach Convention Center” (his example), he still could not fire them, but would “report them to the police department.”  This testimony reflects adversely upon Liriani’s credibility.  We find this factor also weighs heavily in favor of finding an employment relationship existed.

Based on the foregoing, we hold the circuit court correctly considered the jurisdictional facts and found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Pikaart was the general manager of A & A Taxi and thus, its employee.  Accordingly, the circuit court’s determination in this regard is affirmed.

B.      Additional Findings of Fact

Appellants next contend that, even if this Court agrees with the circuit court’s determination that Pikaart was an employee, the circuit court committed “obvious error” by making additional findings of fact regarding the benefits to which Pikaart is entitled.  Appellants state these findings encompassed such matters as the compensability of Pikaart’s claims, his average weekly wage, the dates for which he was to receive benefits, and his entitlement to additional medical care.

Appellants state the Commission never reached the issue of benefits because it found it had no jurisdiction.  Appellants assert these findings go beyond the limited jurisdictional issue presented on appeal, i.e., whether an employer-employee relationship existed, and the circuit court lacks the authority to make its own findings of fact on issues not related to jurisdiction.  Instead, such issues should have been remanded to the Commission.

Although the circuit court committed error for the reasons stated by Appellants, there is no indication in the record that Appellants ever presented this argument to the circuit court to allow it the opportunity to amend its ruling.  Thus, any error was not preserved and it is not properly before this Court.

A matter may not be presented for the first time on appeal; rather, it must have been both raised to and ruled upon by the court below.  Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998).

Although Rule 59(e), SCRCP motions are not applicable in matters before the Commission itself,^[4] such motions are applicable when the circuit court sits in an appellate capacity, and they are required to preserve an issue for review by the Court of Appeals or this Court.  See Shealy, 341 S.C. at 460, 535 S.E.2d at 444 (holding, in a workers’ compensation case, that the alleged error was not preserved for appellate review where the circuit court did not rule on the issue and no Rule 59(e), SCRCP motion was made);Leviner v. Sonoco Prods. Co., 339 S.C. 492, 530 S.E.2d 127 (2000) (observing neither party filed a timely motion under Rule 59(e), SCRCP seeking clarification of the circuit court’s order in an appeal from the Commission); see also Hill v. South Carolina Dep’t. of Health & Envt’l Control, 389 S.C. 1, 698 S.E.2d 612 (2010) (stating Rule 59(e), SCRCP motions are necessary to preserve issues not ruled upon for review when the circuit court sits in an appellate capacity (citing City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 646 S.E.2d 879 (2007)).

IV.  CONCLUSION

Because the issue on appeal concerns jurisdiction, i.e., whether an employer-employee relationship existed, this Court may take its own view of the preponderance of the evidence.  We hold the facts in this case preponderate in favor of a finding that Pikaart was the general manager of A & A Taxi and, thus, was an employee subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission.  To the extent Appellants contend the circuit court erred in making additional findings of fact that were not related to jurisdiction, we hold this issue is not properly before this Court on appeal as it was not preserved.  Consequently, we affirm the circuit court’s order in full.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

[1]  The first accident occurred when Pikaart used a taxi to pick up a driver who had no transportation to work.  The taxi was struck from behind while waiting at a red light.  The second accident occurred after Pikaart had driven to a repair shop to check on the status of a mechanical problem with another taxi.  Before leaving the shop, Pikaart called a dispatcher to inquire whether they needed any assistance, and he was directed to pick up a paying passenger in Socastee.  Pikaart was on his way to pick up the fare when a driver in another car ran a stop sign, and the two collided.  A & A Taxi owned the taxis involved in both accidents.

[2]  In Kilgore, we observed that “[u]nder the South Carolina Employment Security Law, employment is defined to include ‘any service performed by any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee . . . .'”  Kilgore, 313 S.C. at 68, 437 S.E.2d at 49 (quoting S.C. Code Ann. § 41-27-230(1)(b) (1986)).  In this case, the Employment Security Commission ruled Pikaart was an employee of A & A Taxi.

[3]  Wilkinson was published only a couple of days prior to the date the circuit court’s order was signed.

[4]  Stone v. Roadway Express, 367 S.C. 575, 582, 627 S.E.2d 695, 699 (2006) (“Rule 59(e) is not applicable in proceedings before the commission.”); Nettles v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. #7, 341 S.C. 580, 535 S.E.2d 146 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating workers’ compensation law does not contain a motion to reconsider; rather, a party must appeal).

SC Workers’ Compensation – Occupational Disease Claims

Jan 26, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

This recent SC Supreme Court case discusses the interplay between the three (3) permanent disability statutes. Once released from care, a treating physician will assign an “impairment rating.” These ratings, in conjunction with a claimant’s age, education, prior work history, future medical care, and/or  permanent work restrictions, will be considered by the Workers’ Compensation Commission to determine “disability.” If a particular body part is affected, Section 42-9-30 will be used to assess an award. If more than one body part is affected or, in this case, an “occupational disease” claim, the general disability statutes would apply. However, a claimant must be able to show “wage loss.” As you can see, these statutes can be rather confusing, and the burden of proof for all elements is always on the claimant. Better make sure your attorney is experienced in workers’ compensation cases and knows what he/she is doing.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Thomas E. Skinner, Employee, Respondent,

v.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Employer, and Viacom, Carrier, Defendants,

Of Whom Westinghouse Electric Corporation is, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Walter H. Sanders, Jr., Special Referee

Opinion No. 27037
Heard May 25, 2011 – Filed September 6, 2011

REVERSED

R. Daniel Addison, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, L.L.P., of Columbia, Shay Dvoretzky and Craig I. Chosiad, of Jones Day, of Washington, D.C. for Appellant.

Jeffrey T. Eddy, of Charleston, for Respondent.

JUSTICE HEARN: Thomas Skinner received an award of benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Commission for his asbestosis under the scheduled loss provisions of Section 42-9-30 of the South Carolina Code (1976 & Supp. 2009).  Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Skinner’s former employer, appeals that decision, arguing Skinner cannot recover for a scheduled loss and must proceed under the “general disability” statutes found in Sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-20 of the South Carolina Code (1976 & Supp. 2009).  We agree and reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Skinner began working for Westinghouse in 1968 and spent nearly fifteen years performing several different jobs in its Hampton, South Carolina plant.  During the course of his employment, Skinner was regularly exposed to and breathed in asbestos dust contained in the insulation products produced at the plant as well as other toxic chemicals.  In addition to his work with Westinghouse, Skinner joined the South Carolina Army National Guard as a reservist in 1969, attending one drill weekend a month and two drill weeks in the summer each year.  Furthermore, he worked in the “property book” section of the National Guard, keeping accounting records of government-owned property.

In 1983, Skinner left Westinghouse on his own accord, not because of any condition, medical or otherwise, and began working full-time with the National Guard.  His salary with the National Guard was over $44,000 per year, which was more than he was making at Westinghouse.  He held that position until 1990, when he became a unit administrator for the Bamberg unit.  As of 2005, he was still working full-time with the National Guard as an administrator for the Hampton unit.[1]

Skinner began having noticeable breathing problems while he was employed at Westinghouse.  His breathing problems became more pronounced in the early 1990s, when he was working full-time with the National Guard.  At that time, an army doctor diagnosed him with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).  Skinner continued to have breathing problems, and a pulmonary function test performed in 1998 showed a worsening of his lung function.  Dr. Cary E. Fechter, a board-certified pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist, evaluated Skinner in 2003 and diagnosed him with asbestosis, occupational bronchitis, severe sleep apnea, and sinusitis.  Additionally, medical records for the hospital where Skinner received his general medical care stated he had COPD and asbestosis in both lungs.

Skinner filed a claim against Westinghouse with the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission in 2004, alleging he suffered an accidental injury to his lungs and whole body in 2003, caused by chronic inhalation of asbestos fibers, chemical fumes, and other injurious airborne contaminants.  Skinner claimed this injury led to partial general disability and partial specific disability.  Although Skinner was the only witness to testify at the hearing, the parties submitted the depositions of several doctors, including Dr. Fechter who claimed Skinner had a combined impairment of 64% of the whole person.

The Commissioner found Skinner suffered from an occupational disease and an injury by accident, was partially disabled, and was able to recover under section 42-9-30.  Accordingly, the Commissioner awarded Skinner a lump sum amount of $119,159.66.  Westinghouse appealed this decision to the Appellate Panel of the Commission, which affirmed the Commissioner’s order.  Westinghouse then appealed to the circuit court, which dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  This Court reversed that decision and remanded the appeal back to the circuit court. See Skinner v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 380 S.C. 91, 97, 668 S.E.2d 795, 798 (2008).  The circuit court referred the matter to a special referee, who held a hearing and summarily affirmed the Commission’s findings.  This appeal followed.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Westinghouse raises two issues on appeal:

LAW/ANALYSIS

Westinghouse’s arguments on appeal concern the impact of section 42-11-60 on Skinner’s right to recover for his pulmonary disease.  In particular, it argues Skinner can only recover for total or partial disability under sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-20, respectively.  Westinghouse therefore contends the Commissioner erred in finding Skinner’s injuries to be compensable as a scheduled loss under section 42-9-30.  Our review is limited to deciding whether the Commission’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by some error of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(d) (Supp. 2010); Rodriguez v. Romero, 363 S.C. 80, 84, 610 S.E.2d 488, 490 (2005).  We agree with Westinghouse.

Section 42-11-10(D) of the South Carolina Code (1985) generally allows for compensation to be paid to an employee with an occupational disease who suffers from a disability under sections 42-9-10, 42-9-20, or 42-9-30.  Section 42-11-10(B)(5) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010) exempts from the definition of occupational disease “any disease of the cardiac, pulmonary, or circulatory system.”  However, this subsection also contains an exception to this exception applicable to Skinner’s claim: if the pulmonary disease results from “the natural entrance into the body through the skin or natural orifices thereof of foreign organic or inorganic matter under circumstances peculiar to the employment and the processes utilized therein,” then it is an occupational disease. Id. (emphasis added).  In Skinner’s case, his asbestosis was caused by the inhalation of asbestos dust.  It is undisputed that asbestos dust was prevalent in his work conditions at Westinghouse due to the particular products it manufactured, and thus, it was peculiar to his employment.  Therefore, Skinner’s asbestosis is an occupational disease under the statute.

However, “[n]o compensation shall be payable for any pulmonary disease arising out of the inhalation of organic or inorganic dust or fumes unless the claimant suffers disability as described in § 42-9-10 or § 42-9-20 and shall not be compensable under § 42-9-30.” Id. § 42-11-60 (1985).  Because section 42-11-60 is the specific statute governing compensability for pulmonary disease, it controls over the more general language of 42-11-10(D). See Langley v. Pierce, 313 S.C. 401, 403, 438 S.E.2d 242, 243 (1993) (citing Lloyd v. Lloyd, 295 S.C. 55, 57-58, 367 S.E.2d 153, 155 (1988)) (“Generally, specific laws prevail over general laws and later legislation takes precedence over earlier legislation.”).  It is uncontested that COPD and asbestosis are pulmonary diseases.  Therefore, in order for Skinner to be compensated, he must proceed under sections 42-9-10 or 42-9-20, not section 42-9-30.

Sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-20 are commonly known as the “general disability statutes,” with section 42-9-10 governing total disability and section 42-9-20 governing partial disability.  Both parties concede that Skinner’s claim falls under the partial disability statute.  Under section 42-9-20, lost wages must be shown in order to receive compensation. S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-20 (1985) (stating that an employee with partial disability receives “a weekly compensation equal to sixty-six and two-thirds percent of thedifference between his average weekly wages before the injury and the average weekly wages which he is able to earn thereafter, but not more than the average weekly wage in this State for the preceding fiscal year”) (emphasis added).  “It is well-settled that an award under the general disability statutes must be predicated upon a showing of a loss of earning capacity, whereas an award under the scheduled loss statute does not require such a showing.” Fields v. Owens Corning Fiberglas, 301 S.C. 554, 555, 393 S.E.2d 172, 173 (1990) (citing Roper v. Kimbrell’s of Greenville, Inc., 231 S.C. 453, 461, 99 S.E.2d 52, 56-57 (1957)).

Without question, Skinner has established that he suffers from an occupational disease.   However, because his asbestosis is a pulmonary disease, it is not compensable under section 42-9-30, and is only compensable under section 42-9-20, which requires a showing of lost wages.  Skinner’s workers compensation claim fails because he cannot establish any lost wages occasioned by his asbestosis.  In fact, the only evidence of Skinner’s wages established that he was making more money with the National Guard than he did when he was employed by Westinghouse.  Because he is unable to prove lost wages, we find that Skinner cannot recover under section 42-9-20, and as a result, does not have a compensable occupational disease.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the special referee’s affirmance of Skinner’s award based upon the clear language of section 42-11-60.  In that section, the General Assembly specified that recovery for a pulmonary disease such as Skinner’s hinges upon a showing of lost wages under section 42-9-10 and 42-9-20.  Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive of the appeal, it is not necessary for us to address the remaining issues raised by the parties. See Futch v. McAlister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (determining that once an appellate court has addressed an issue that is dispositive to the case, it is unnecessary to address any remaining issues).

REVERSED.                         

PLEICONES, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.

[1]Under the National Guard’s rules, Skinner would reach his mandatory retirement age in September 2006.  We assume that he retired as planned at that time.

Pre-Existing Conditions in SC Workers’ Comp – Yesterday’s News

Jan 21, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

This recent SC Supreme Court case discusses the interplay between “pre-existing conditions” and enhanced permanent impairment in workers’ compensation cases. Ordinarily, a pre-existing condition is a disqualifying event for health and life insurance policies. However, in workers’ compensation, such a condition is not fatal to your claim. Rather, it can actually make a claim compensable (as your condition pre-disposes you to injury) and/or greater permanent impairment. In these cases, a skilled workers’ compensation attorney will have to secure the necessary medical causation opinions and document in prior medical records the distinction between a prior injury or condition and the new injury for which benefits are being sought. Experience counts here.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Sandra Bartley, Claimant, Petitioner,

v.

Allendale County School District, Employer, and S.C. School Boards Insurance Trust, Carrier, Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From Allendale County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No.  26960
Heard March 1, 2011 – Filed April 11, 2011

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Jonathan R. Hendrix, of Williams, Hendrix, Steigner & Brink, of Lexington, for Petitioner.

Kirsten Leslie Barr, of Trask & Howell, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondents.

JUSTICE BEATTY:  We granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to review Bartley v. Allendale County School District, 381 S.C. 262, 672 S.E.2d 809 (Ct. App. 2009), in which the Court of Appeals held Sandra Bartley was entitled to benefits for an injury to her neck that resulted in a thirty percent permanent disability to her back, but denied all other benefits.  On appeal, Bartley contends her physical injury combined with her pre-existing impairments[1] resulted in a substantially greater disability that is compensable pursuant to Ellison v. Frigidaire Home Products, 371 S.C. 159, 638 S.E.2d 664 (2006).  We reverse and remand.

I.  FACTS

On September 26, 2002, Bartley was working as a special needs teacher with the Allendale County School District when a child accidently collided with her during recess and knocked her down while trying to give her a hug.  Bartley fell onto a chain link fence and landed on the ground on top of some tree roots, and the child fell on top of her.

Bartley sought medical treatment and was thereafter referred to an orthopedic medical practice.  Bartley told the orthopedic physician that she could not lift her arm and that she had pain in her right shoulder and her arm muscles, as those were the problems that most concerned her.  The orthopedic physician noted in early April 2003 that Bartley’s original physician had unfortunately misdiagnosed Bartley as having tendonitis bursitis of the shoulder and had referred her for physical therapy, which worsened the condition.[2]  However, the orthopedic physician stated an MRI confirmed Bartley had “severe foraminal stenosis at C5-6” [3] and that this was a “cervical radiculopathy type process rather than shoulder pathology” that was “clearly . . . related to her original injury at work.”

On May 14, 2003, Bartley underwent surgery for a cervical fusion.  After that, Bartley seemed to be doing better and believed that she could return to teaching.  Bartley filed a Form 50 on July 18, 2003 noting injuries to her neck, right arm, right hand, and left knee, as well as the occurrence of migraine headaches.

In August 2003 Bartley began a new job teaching for Richland County School District One in Columbia.  From August to October of 2003, Bartley began having more pain.  Bartley attributed this to her teaching duties, which required her to work long hours and to lift a lot of equipment and other items.  In October 2003, a student picked up a desk and threatened to throw it at Bartley.  She was not physically harmed, but according to Bartley, the threat brought back memories of being injured in 2002 and made her fearful that she could be injured again.

Bartley’s physician prescribed a medical leave of absence after October 2003, stating her “neuropathic parascapular pain” was “definitely related to the incident on September 26, 2002” and was “most likely going to result in temporary or total disability to perform her work as she did prior to these injuries.”  Bartley returned to work briefly in January 2004 before her physician again prescribed a medical leave of absence.[4]

On December 10, 2004, Bartley filed a second Form 50 seeking a hearing.  Bartley noted injuries to her cervical spine that resulted in pain, tingling and numbness down the right side of her body (including the neck/shoulder/arm/hand/buttocks/leg); dizziness; headaches; ringing in her ears; and emotional/mental problems (post-traumatic stress disorder).

A hearing was held in August 2005 before a commissioner of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Bartley submitted a “Psychological Discharge Summary” dated January 4, 2005 from Dr. Clay Drummond, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed her as having a pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic intractable pain, and cognitive degradation.  Dr. Drummond stated: “It is most psychologically probable that her disorders were either caused by or exacerbated by her at work accident.”  Dr. Drummond found the “combination of [Bartley’s] physical and emotional difficulties precludes her from doing any type of meaningful work” and that “[s]he will continue to need maintenance psychiatric medications and likely need periodic maintenance visits with a mental health professional.”

Bartley also submitted a February 28, 2005 assessment from Joel D. Leonard, a Vocational Consultant, who reported that Bartley’s “work-related injury from September 26, 2002 has had a severe and adverse effect on her ability to perform gainful work activity” and that she “is . . . totally disabled . . . due to the combined implications of her physio-vocational and psycho-vocational status.”  Leonard concluded “Bartley’s work-related accident has had a catastrophic effect on her ability to access the open labor market and her ability to garner a weekly wage.”

The commissioner found Bartley had suffered an injury to her neck in the 2002 accident and a resulting thirty percent loss of use of her back, but that Bartley had failed to prove “that she suffered an injury to any body part other than her neck or that her psychological condition has worsened as a result of this injury.”  The commissioner denied Bartley’s “claims for benefits for the buttocks, low back, right leg, dizziness, ringing in the ears or psychological disorder” on the basis they were barred by the statute of limitations and “these conditions were not caused by [Bartley’s] injury at work.”  The commissioner stated that he “d[id] not doubt that the Claimant’s future prospects of employment will be limited,” but that he was “not allowed to stack her personal ailments with her work injury to make a finding of disability,” citing Ellison v. Frigidaire Home Products, 360 S.C. 236, 600 S.E.2d 120 (Ct. App. 2004) (Ellison I).  The commissioner observed, “It appears that Dr. Drummond and Joel Leonard have done exactly that in making their assessments of employability.”

The Appellate Panel affirmed the commissioner’s order with certain amendments and adopted the commissioner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.  Specifically, the Appellate Panel affirmed the commissioner’s finding that Bartley suffered a thirty percent permanent loss of use of her back as a result of her neck injury that occurred on September 26, 2002.  The Appellate Panel found the claims for benefits for the buttocks, low back, right leg, dizziness, ringing in the ears, and psychological overlay were not barred by the statute of limitations in S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-40, although it agreed with the commissioner’s finding that these conditions were not caused by Bartley’s work injury.[5]  The Appellate Panel found Bartley was not disabled from work because of her neck injury “since she began work with Richland School District One in August 2003.”  The circuit court and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) provides the standard for judicial review of workers’ compensation decisions.  Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 386 S.C. 534, 689 S.E.2d 615 (2010); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981).  Under the APA, this Court can reverse or modify the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission if the substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.  Transp. Ins. Co. v. South Carolina Second Injury Fund, 389 S.C. 422, 427, 699 S.E.2d 687, 689-90 (2010) (citing S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(d), (e) (Supp. 2009)).

The Commission is the ultimate fact finder in workers’ compensation cases.  Jordan v. Kelly Co., 381 S.C. 483, 674 S.E.2d 166 (2009); Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 535 S.E.2d 438 (2000).  As a general rule, this Court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are supported by substantial evidence.  Pierre, 386 S.C. at 541, 689 S.E.2d at 618.  “Substantial evidence is that evidence which, in considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the Commission reached.”  Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436, 645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007).  “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the Commission’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Id.

III.  LAW/ANALYSIS

Bartley contends the Court of Appeals erred in failing to reverse and remand her case to the Commission in light of this Court’s decision in Ellison v. Frigidaire Home Products, 371 S.C. 159, 638 S.E.2d 664 (2006) (Ellison II), which reversed the Ellison I case relied upon by the single commissioner and the Appellate Panel.  Bartley contends she has suffered a greater disability than the specific injury to her neck.  The Court of Appeals found Ellison II to be inapplicable.

Ellison fractured his leg while operating a forklift for Frigidaire and sustained a twenty percent impairment to his leg.  Ellison v. Frigidaire, 360 S.C. 236, 238, 600 S.E.2d 120, 121 (Ct. App. 2004).   At the time of his accident, Ellison had been suffering for several years from hypertension and prostate cancer.  Id.  After his accident, Ellison was also diagnosed with sleep apnea, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.  Id.

Ellison argued the combination of his accidental leg injury and his other medical ailments rendered him totally and permanently disabled.  Id. Frigidaire, in contrast, argued Ellison was limited to the scheduled member benefits of a twenty percent impairment for his leg because only his leg was injured in his workplace accident.  Id.

The commissioner and the Appellate Panel concluded the combination of Ellison’s workplace injury and his other ailments rendered him totally disabled, and the circuit court affirmed.  Id. at 238-39, 600 S.E.2d at 121.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-400 (relied upon by Ellison) was inapplicable and that he was limited to benefits for a scheduled member (the leg) because there was no evidence that his workplace injury affected any body part other than his leg.  Id. at 241, 600 S.E.2d at 122.

This Court reversed in Ellison v. Frigidaire Home Products, 371 S.C. 159, 638 S.E.2d 664 (2006).  The Court held that Ellison’s workplace injury, combined with his pre-existing physical conditions (including hypertension, sleep apnea, prostate cancer, diabetes, and congestive cardiac disease), rendered him physically unable to return to work and left him permanently and totally disabled.  This Court interpreted section 42-9-400, which provided in relevant part as follows:

(a) If an employee who has a permanent physical impairment from any cause or origin incurs a subsequent disability from injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in compensation and medical payments liability or either, for disability that is substantially greater, by reason of the combined effects of the preexisting impairment and subsequent injury or by reason of the aggravation of the preexisting impairment, than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone, the employer or his insurance carrier shall in the first instance pay all awards of compensation and medical benefits provided by this Title; but such employer or his insurance carrier shall be reimbursed from the Second Injury Fund. . . .

(d) As used in this section, “permanent physical impairment” means any permanent condition, whether congenital or due to injury or disease, of such seriousness as to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to obtaining employment or to obtaining reemployment if the employee should become unemployed.

Id. at 161-62, 638 S.E.2d at 665.

This Court held there is no requirement that the pre-existing condition aggravated the work injury or that the work injury aggravated the pre-existing condition; rather, the question to be considered was whether the combined effects of the condition and the workplace injury resulted in a greater disability than would otherwise have existed:

The language of § 42-9-400(a) and (d) indicates the legislature clearly envisioned that a claimant may recover for greater disability than that incurred from a single injury to a particular body part if the combination with any pre-existing condition hinders reemployment. There is no requirement that the pre-existing condition aggravated the injury, or that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition, so long as there is a greater disability simply from the “combined effects” of the injury and the pre-existing condition.

Id. at 164, 638 S.E.2d at 666 (emphasis added).[6]

In the current appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the determination of the Appellate Panel that Bartley was limited to benefits for an injury to her neck and a resulting thirty percent impairment to her back.  Bartley v. Allendale County Sch. Dist., 381 S.C. 262, 672 S.E.2d 809 (Ct. App. 2009).

The Court of Appeals rejected Bartley’s argument that she is totally disabled and that her psychological and physical problems affect more than just her back and hinder her employment, entitling her to additional benefits.  The Court of Appeals ruled there was substantial evidence to support the Appellate Panel’s determination that the 2002 accident did not cause or aggravate Bartley’s other conditions.  Id. at 274-75, 672 S.E.2d at 815.  The Court of Appeals further observed that this Court’s decision in Ellison II was not applicable to Bartley:

Although Bartley presented some evidence the Allendale incident [when she was accidently knocked down by a student on September 26, 2002] aggravated Bartley’s pre-existing conditions, the record also contains substantial evidence the Allendale incident did not cause or aggravate her conditions.  Substantial evidence may support finding either the Richland incident aggravated her pre-existing conditions or that her pre-existing conditions were not aggravated at all because she was experiencing the same problems before the accident.  Accordingly, Ellison II does not apply.  The Appellate Panel is the ultimate fact finder and when the facts conflict, as they do here, its findings are conclusive.  The record contains substantial evidence supporting the Appellate Panel’s decision.

Id. at 275, 672 S.E.2d at 815 (emphasis added).  The “Richland incident” referred to above by the Court of Appeals occurred when a student threatened to throw a desk at Bartley.

In Bartley it appears the Court of Appeals focused on whether Bartley’s 2002 accident caused her other medical conditions or whether it aggravated her pre-existing conditions.  However, in Ellison II this Court held that aggravation was not a requirement but an alternative analysis:  “There is no requirement that the pre-existing condition aggravated the injury, or that the injury aggravated the pre-existing condition, so long as there is a greater disability simply from the ‘combined effects’ of the injury and the pre-existing condition.”  Ellison II, 371 S.C. at 164, 638 S.E.2d at 666.

The Court of Appeals recited the Ellison II standard in Bartley and noted that “the statute provides for the aggravation of a pre-existing condition as an alternative to the combined effects provision.”  Bartley, 381 S.C. at 273 n.4, 672 S.E.2d at 814 n.4.  However, the Court of Appeals stated Bartley “has a long history of suffering from depression and migraine headaches” as well as other ailments, and her problems could have been caused by circumstances that were unrelated to her 2002 workplace injury.[7] Id. at 275, 672 S.E.2d at 815.  Thus, it seems to rely upon the absence of proof of aggravation or causation.

It is not the province of this Court or the Court of Appeals to engage in fact-finding, as that is solely the function of the Commission.  The orders of both the commissioner and the Appellate Panel (which incorporated much of the commissioner’s order) were affected by an error of law.  The commissioner stated that he “d[id] not doubt that the Claimant’s future prospects of employment will be limited,” but that he “is not allowed to stack her personal ailments with her work related injury to make a finding of disability,” citingEllison I.  The Appellate Panel incorporated this finding into its order.  Thus, the Commission has not considered Bartley’s claims applying the proper legal standard and has not made specific factual findings as to Bartley’s other conditions because it made an initial determination that they could not be considered.

The Court of Appeals did not remand this case to the Commission but instead concluded Ellison II was not applicable.  In doing so, it arguably made findings of fact (such as the effect of the “Richland incident”) that were not made by the Commission and it also did not properly apply the legal standard in Ellison II because it focused on an aggravation analysis instead of a combined effects analysis, although it recited the language in Ellison II that indicated aggravation was not required.

The Commission, had it considered the application of the law in Ellison II, would have made additional findings of fact pertinent to this analysis that are missing from the record.  Thus, a remand to the Commission is necessary to allow it to make the necessary factual findings and legal conclusions to resolve Bartley’s claims.  See, e.g., Fox v. Newberry County Mem’l Hosp., 319 S.C. 278, 280, 461 S.E.2d 392, 394 (1995) (“The duty to determine facts is placed solely on the Commission and the court reviewing the decision of the Commission has no authority to determine factual issues but must remand the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.  The reviewing court may not make findings of fact as to basic issues of liability for compensation, where, to do so, would impose upon the court the function of determining such facts from conflicting evidence.” (internal citation omitted)); cf. Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 252, 631 S.E.2d 268, 276-77 (Ct. App. 2006) (“When an administrative agency acts without first making the proper factual findings required by law, the proper procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make those findings.”).[8]

IV.  CONCLUSION

Bartley has a long and complicated history of medical problems, and determining the extent, cause, and effects of her conditions has been the subject of debate among her treating physicians.  The commissioner expressly applied the holding in Ellison I in finding Bartley was not allowed to “stack” her ailments in order to determine her overall disability, and this finding was adopted by the Appellate Panel.  The commissioner made no additional findings after making the initial determination that other conditions could not be considered.  The Commission’s decision was affected by an error of law; therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the matter to the Commission for consideration of Bartley’s claims in light of this Court’s decision inEllison II.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TOAL, C.J., KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in result only.

[1]  Bartley has a complex medical history of physical ailments along with psychological conditions such as panic attacks and depression that have affected her for much of her adult life.

[2]  When Bartley reported pain throughout her body, the original physician also opined that she had fibromyalgia, which she had experienced previously.

[3]  “Foraminal stenosis” refers to a narrowing (stenosis) of the foramen (opening), i.e., the hole in a bone through which a spinal nerve passes as it exits the spine.  A foramen is at each level of the spine, with one on each side.  When the nerve becomes compressed, it can cause pain and numbness, tingling, and sensory abnormalities on the affected side.  See generallyhttp://www.nervous-system-diseases.com/foraminal-stenosis.html.  Depending on the location of the nerve being compressed, stenosis can result in a variety of problems, including pain that travels to the buttocks, leg, calf, and foot, or to the shoulder, arm, and hand. See, e.g., http://www.laserspineinstitute.com/back_problems/foraminal_stenosis/symptoms.

[4]  Bartley thereafter suffered several other conditions requiring medical treatment.  In September 2004, she had fusion surgery in her lower back at levels four and five due to the discovery of a facet cyst.  Bartley did not believe this lower back condition was related to her injury.  In May 2005, she had surgery on her right ankle.

[5]  This Court denied certiorari on the question whether the statute of limitations would preclude Bartley’s claims.  Consequently, no issue is before the Court in this regard.

[6]  Section 42-9-400(a) was later amended to refer to a “disability that is substantially greater and is caused by aggravation of the preexisting impairment than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone,” and it has omitted the “combined effects” language.  Act No. 111, Pt. II, § 3, 2007 S.C. Acts 599 (emphasis added).  However, this change is applicable only to injuries that occur on or after July 1, 2007 and the parties do not argue the new version applies here.

[7]  To the extent Bartley contends her pre-existing conditions included a psychological disorder, this Court has previously held that a claimant is entitled to benefits for aggravation of a pre-existing condition of depression.  See Anderson v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 541 S.E.2d 526 (2001).

[8]  We note that many of the symptoms Bartley suffered (such as the pain radiating down to her buttocks, leg, and foot, and her complaints of numbness and tingling) have been reported to be associated with a diagnosis of foraminal stenosis, but this is a question of fact that should be evaluated by the Commission in the first instance, along with her arguments concerning the combined effects of her conditions.

Psychological Injury Claims in SC Workers’ Comp

Jan 21, 2012 | Car Accidents, Personal Injury, Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

In this recent SC Court of Appeals case, SC reaffirmed and clarified that so called “mental-mental” cases require a workers’ compensation claimant to suffer an “unusual or extraordinary” condition of his/here particular employment (emphasis added). Such burden of proof will require both factual testimony as well as expert testimony to prove both critical elements of this type case. Psychological claims are aggressively defended as they can have so many potential causes.

At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our lawyers are experienced workers’ compensation attorneys.  Robert J. Reeves is a former Registered Nurse (RN) who has actually treated patients with the same type of serious injuries he now represents in workers’ compensation cases.  Both Robert J. Reeves and Arthur K. Aiken are former insurance defense attorneys who know how to anticipate and prepare for defenses and insurance company tactics.  During our twenty-two (22) years each of practicing law, we have successfully handled virtually every type of workers’ compensation injury, including neck, back, shoulder, knee accidents, closed head / brain injury, herniated disks, bulging disks, diskectomy surgery, fusion procedures, arthroscopy, automobile accidents on the job, psychological / post traumatic stress, permanent and total disability claims, and wrongful death. We welcome the opportunity to sit down and personally discuss your particular case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials to any other firm. Then call us at 877-374-5999 for a private, confidential consultation.

Raquel MARTINEZ, Employee, Respondent,
v.
SPARTANBURG COUNTY and S.C. Association of Counties Self-Insurance Fund, Carrier, Appellants.

Chadwick Dean Pye, of Spartanburg, and Kevin B. Smith, of Charleston, for Respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Spartanburg County and South Carolina Association of Counties Self-Insurance Fund (Spartanburg County) contend the circuit court erred in concluding the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s (Single Commissioner) order was insufficient to enable appellate review. Further, to the extent the order was sufficient, the circuit court erred in finding Raquel Martinez (Martinez) experienced an “unusual or extraordinary” condition in the course of employment to warrant finding Martinez suffered a compensable mental injury. We agree and reverse.[1]

FACTS

Martinez, a twenty-eight year law enforcement veteran, was employed as a master deputy forensic investigator with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office. As a forensic investigator,Martinez‘ job description included reporting to crime scenes, collecting evidence, and taking photographs of crime scenes. Additionally, Martinez came into contact with deceased bodies, attended autopsies, and processed fingerprints and other forensic evidence.

On April 4, 2005, Martinez was called to perform a forensic accident investigation involving the death of a child in Greer, South Carolina.^[2] At this point, Martinez only knew a child was killed, and the accident involved a former employee of the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office. When Martinez arrived at the scene, she was informed that Anthony Johnson, a Greenville County Deputy Sheriff and a former officer with the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office, accidentally killed his two-year-old daughter while backing his patrol car out of his driveway.

As part of Martinez‘ standard forensic investigation, she took measurements of the child’s body and photographed the front lawn of the house, the child’s body, the location of the patrol car, the interior of the house, and the undercarriage of the patrol car. Martinez testified all of these tasks were part of her ordinary job.

Approximately four months after the accident investigation, Ramon Martinez, Martinez‘ father (Father), received a phone call from Martinez‘ neighbor informing him that Martinez was “going up and down in the front yard, and she [was] talking weird.” After arriving at Martinez‘ house, Father was unable to locate Martinez and discovered her car windshield was “smashed to pieces,” and her house was in a state of disarray. Father discovered Martinez in some nearby bushes. At this point, Martinez wanted Father to meet an imaginary “little girl” that she was going to take on a trip. Martinez was admitted to Spartanburg Regional Medical Center and was diagnosed with delirium related to Benzodiazepine withdrawal symptoms after she abruptly stopped taking Xanax. Martinez continued to receive psychiatric and psychological treatment in 2005 and 2006.

Martinez subsequently filed a Form 50 claiming she experienced a mental breakdown as a result of the April 4, 2005 investigation. During the hearing before the Single Commissioner,Martinez indicated she had worked approximately one-hundred to one-hundred and fifty death calls, investigated “a couple dozen” crime scenes involving suspicious deaths, witnessed autopsies, and viewed burnt bodies at fire scenes as a forensic investigator. However,Martinez testified she never investigated a scene when a fellow officer was involved with the death of his own child, and she never investigated a violent crime when she knew the parties.Martinez further testified, “[She and Anthony Johnson] were not best friends. [But] [w]e were friends, and we were associates, and it’s a police officer.” After conducting the investigation,Martinez stated she cried about the child on the same night of the accident investigation and experienced nightmares.

Captain Stephen Denton, a twenty-year law enforcement veteran, testified the April 4, 2005 accident investigation ranked emotionally as the worst investigation in his career. In addition, he stated this accident was not ordinary because of Anthony Johnson’s prior affiliation with theSpartanburg County Sheriff’s Office. Moreover, Captain Denton indicated he noticed a change in Martinez‘ demeanor on the date of the accident. Specifically, Captain Denton stated,

I can’t imagine anybody that was present at the scene felt too good, you know, for days to follow. You don’t understand that unless you’ve seen it, and so it’s very hard for someone else to judge that, that had not seen it. However, given a reasonable amount of time to recuperate from something like that—and I don’t know what reasonable is, but within a week, week and a half, I could see that, you know, obviously, she was depressed, and within [a couple] three weeks, it showed in her work, in her habits.

Nonetheless, Captain Denton stated Martinez was fulfilling her ordinary job duties when she took photographs and measurements of the scene and moved the child’s body. He also stated the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office does not have a procedure that prohibits employees from working scenes involving victims they know.

The Single Commissioner concluded the April 4, 2005 investigation was not an “unusual or extraordinary” condition of Martinez‘ employment. The Single Commissioner also found Martinez failed to prove the April 4, 2005 investigation was the proximate cause of her mental breakdown. The Workers’ Compensation Commission Appellate Panel (Appellate Panel) adopted the Single Commissioner’s findings of fact and affirmed the Single Commissioner’s order in its entirety. On appeal, the circuit court reversed and remanded the decision of the Appellate Panel. The circuit court concluded the Single Commissioner’s order was not sufficiently detailed to enable appellate review, and was left to speculate whether the proper analysis was applied by the Single Commissioner. The circuit court also concluded even if the Single Commissioner’s findings were appropriate, the findings focused on the ordinary aspects of Martinez‘ job and not whether Martinez‘ work was unusual compared to her particular employment. The circuit court further concluded the Single Commissioner’s order was deficient as a matter of law on the issue of proximate cause, and the only conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence was that the April 4, 2005 investigation proximately caused her mental breakdown. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for decisions by the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). The Commission is the ultimate fact finder in workers’ compensation cases and is not bound by the Single Commissioner’s findings of fact.Etheredge 230*230 v. Monsanto Co., 349 S.C. 451, 454, 562 S.E.2d 679, 681 (Ct.App.2002). The findings of the commission are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence. Lark, 276 S.C. at 135, 276 S.E.2d at 306.

LAW/ANALYSIS

A. Sufficiency of the Order

As an initial matter, Spartanburg County contends the circuit court erred in concluding the Single Commissioner’s order was not sufficiently detailed to enable appellate review. We agree.

The findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the evidence supports the findings. Frame v. Resort Serv. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 531, 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct.App.2004). “Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings.” S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-350 (2005).

The circuit court’s order stated,

In his Order, the Single Commissioner made three Findings of Fact which were relevant to the decision. Finding of Fact 14 was “investigating the death of a child, even the child of a former Sheriff’s deputy, was not an unusual or extraordinary condition of Claimant’s employment”; [Finding of Fact] 15 was Claimant failed to prove she encountered an unusual or extraordinary condition in her employment on April 4, 2005; and [Finding of Fact] 16 was Claimant failed to prove the accident investigation of April 4, 2005 was the proximate cause of her mental breakdown. The Single Commissioner gave no basis for his factual conclusion in Finding of Fact 14, and as to Findings of Fact 15 and 16, he simply stated to each of these two Findings of Fact that “[T]his finding is based on all the evident [sic] in the record.”

Here, even though the orders from the Commission give a summary of some of the testimony presented during the hearing, no basis for the Finding[s] of Fact 14, 15, and 16 is provided and, thus, this Court is left to speculate if the proper analysis was applied by the Commission and whether the factual conclusions upon which the law was applied has a substantial basis in the record. [footnote omitted] When an administrative agency acts without first making proper factual findings as required by law, the proper procedure is to remand the case and allow the agency the opportunity to make these findings. [citation omitted]

The circuit court’s order only emphasizes Findings of Fact 14, 15, and 16 as relevant to the Single Commissioner’s decision. However, the Single Commissioner’s order provides seventeen pages of evidence, sixteen findings of fact, and conclusions of law to support its decision. Additionally, the circuit court ignored other findings of fact the Single Commissioner discussed on the issue of whether Martinez experienced an “unusual or extraordinary” condition in her particular employment. These findings of fact provide a sufficient basis to allow appellate review. Specifically, the Single Commissioner’s order provides,

Finding of Fact 5

Claimant had been to an investigation previously while working for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Department in which a child’s head had been run over by a dump truck. Claimant testified that the accident did not bother her. She stated that if that type of situation bothered her, she would have never chosen to be a forensic investigator.

Finding of Fact 6

Claimant had investigated and worked up approximately 100-150 death cases in her 3-4 years as a forensic investigator. She had also investigated approximately 24 suspicious death/homicide cases and participated in approximately 24-26 autopsies. These investigations were a usual and ordinary part of her job. Claimant also testified about an investigation of an automobile accident in which an injured teenager had died in her arms.

Finding of Fact 7

When Claimant went to a crime scene, she would take up to 100 photographs and move the body to investigate anything underneath the body. She also took measurements and put up barriers to prevent people from seeing the accident scene. This was a part of her usual and ordinary job.

Finding of Fact 10

CPT Steve Denton testified that the accident scene of the child’s death on April 4, 2005 was a terrible sight but that Claimant was doing her ordinary job that day in investigating the death of the child. CPT Denton required the Claimant to stay and perform the accident investigation because that was her job. The fact that the death scene involved the death of a child of a former Spartanburg County Deputy Sheriff did not remove the situation from being a part of her regular job.

Finding of Fact 11

Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office had no rule prohibiting its employees from going to accident scenes where they knew the victim. CPT Denton testified that he had always maintained and still maintained that no matter who the victim was, the Sheriff’s Department investigators were required to work the accident scene.

The foregoing findings of fact from the Single Commissioner’s order were sufficient to enable appellate review, such that the underlying reasons supporting the Single Commissioner’s conclusion were not left to speculation. Consequently, we find the circuit court erred in concluding the Single Commissioner’s order was deficient in this regard.

B. “Unusual or Extraordinary” Condition of Employment

Spartanburg County contends the circuit court erred in concluding Martinez experienced an “unusual or extraordinary” condition in her particular employment. We agree.

Mental or nervous disorders are compensable provided the emotional stimuli or stressors are incident to or arise from “unusual or extraordinary” conditions of employment. Doe v. S.C. Dep’t of Disabilities & Special Needs, 377 S.C. 346, 349, 660 S.E.2d 260, 262 (2008). The requirement of “unusual or extraordinary” conditions in employment, for a claimant to recover for a “mental-mental” injury refers to conditions of the particular job in which the injury occurs, not to conditions of employment in general. Frame, 357 S.C. at 233*233 529, 593 S.E.2d at 496. To recover for mental injuries caused solely by emotional stress, or “mental-mental” injuries, the claimant must show she was exposed to unusual and extraordinary conditions in her employment and these unusual and extraordinary conditions were the proximate cause of her mental disorder. Tennant v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist., 381 S.C. 617, 621, 674 S.E.2d 488, 490 (2009).

The Single Commissioner found Martinez did not experience an “unusual or extraordinary” condition in her employment on April 4, 2005 because Martinez took photographs and measurements of the investigation scene and moved the child’s body. Additionally, the Single Commissioner noted Martinez witnessed autopsies, previously investigated twenty-four suspicious death/homicide cases, and worked approximately one-hundred to one-hundred and fifty death cases. The Single Commissioner also noted the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office did not have a rule prohibiting its employees from investigating scenes in which they knew the victim. Martinez does not dispute her job duties during the April 4, 2005 investigation were within her ordinary employment. However, Martinez contends the April 4, 2005 investigation was an “unusual or extraordinary” condition of her employment because the child’s father, Anthony Johnson, was a former co-worker at the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office.

While we empathize with the undoubtedly difficult nature of Martinez‘ job, we find Martinez‘ argument unpersuasive. Despite the tragic nature of the accident, the Single Commissioner found that based on Martinez‘ testimony, Martinez and Anthony Johnson’s friendship was not such a close degree as to render the investigation an unusual and extraordinary condition of employment. Specifically, the Single Commissioner stated in Finding of Fact 4:

Claimant contended that working the death case of a child who was run over by a fellow police officer was unusual and extraordinary. She stated that police officers have a “special bond.” However, Claimant was not a close friend of the fellow officer, Anthony Johnson, although she worked on the same shift, and they would occasionally see each other at shift changes. She did not personally know the officer’s wife or child, had never visited their home, and had never socialized with Anthony Johnson or his family.

Moreover, Captain Denton testified about the Spartanburg County Sheriff Office’s procedure regarding investigations of victims that are acquainted with employees. Specifically, Captain Denton stated that, while in hindsight it may not have been the best protocol, he always required detectives to investigate incidents regardless of their relationship with the victims.^[3]

Based on the evidence in the record, we conclude there is substantial evidence to support the Single Commissioner’s finding that Martinez did not suffer an “unusual or extraordinary” condition of her particular employment. Taylor v. S.C. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 368 S.C. 33, 36, 627 S.E.2d 751, 752 (Ct.App.2006) (stating substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence that, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the administrative agency reached in order to justify its action).

Because we reverse the circuit court and conclude there is substantial evidence that Martinezdid not suffer an “unusual or extraordinary” condition in her particular employment, we need not address the issue of proximate cause. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.,335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (stating an appellate court need not address remaining issues when a decision on a prior issue is dispositive).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the circuit court’s decision is

REVERSED.

SHORT, J., concurs.

FEW, C.J., concurs in a separate opinion.

FEW, C.J., concurring.

I concur in the portion of the majority opinion addressing the sufficiency of the commission’s order. I also agree with the majority that the circuit court erred in reversing the commission. I write separately to address what I believe is the basis of the circuit court’s ruling that Investigator Martinez‘ employment conditions were extraordinary and unusual. The circuit court did not rule on the basis of a lack of substantial evidence supporting the commission’s factual finding. Rather, the circuit court reversed the commission on a question of law, finding the commission “failed to conduct the proper analysis.” I also write to explain that the circuit court erred in reversing the commission’s finding of a lack of proximate cause.

A. “Unusual or Extraordinary” Conditions of Employment

The circuit court reversed the commission’s determination that Investigator Martinez‘ stressful employment conditions were not extraordinary and unusual based on a point of law, not based on the sufficiency of the evidence. In the introductory section of the order, before even describing the facts, the circuit court stated “the decision of this Court is that the Order from the Full Commission should be reversed because the analysis . . . is flawed by misapplying,as a matter of law, the `unusual or extraordinary conditions of employment’ test for determining compensability of mental injuries.” (emphasis added). The circuit court made several other statements that it was ruling on a point of law and ultimately concluded: “The Commission’s Order in the present case is void of [the analysis required by Doe v. SCDDSN ^[4]] and, therefore, as a matter of law, is reversed.” The circuit court never mentioned the substantial evidence standard nor even attempted to explain that the evidence was not sufficient to support the commission’s decision. As Appellant stated in its brief, “the Circuit 236*236 Court never addressed the Commission’s findings of fact and never determined whether the findings were supported by substantial evidence.” Rather, the circuit court ruled that the commission committed a legal error in its analysis of whether Investigator Martinez‘ conditions of employment were extraordinary and unusual.

The circuit court erred in reversing the commission on this point of law. Its ruling is based on a misapplication of the reasoning of Doe to the facts of this case. The only aspect of Investigator Martinez‘ employment conditions alleged to be extraordinary and unusual is the nature and character of the April 4, 2005 investigation. Otherwise, there is no suggestion that she encountered anything extraordinary or unusual in her work. Specifically, Investigator Martinez does not allege any change in her employment conditions over the long term.

Doe, on the other hand, was based on a change in the claimant’s long-term employment conditions. The claimant in Doe was employed by the South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs as a licensed practical nurse. 377 S.C. at 348, 660 S.E.2d at 261. After she worked there for approximately eighteen years, the Department began to make changes in the operation of her facility, resulting in a dramatic increase in the level of noise and violence in her unit. Id.

As a result [of the changes], the patient population in Claimant’s unit changed from being a passive group to a mixed group of passive and aggressive patients. The record indicates Claimant’s unit went from being “a fairly pleasant unit to work in” to being “kind of a dumping ground” where none of the other nurses wanted to work.

Id. The supreme court found that the conditions of the claimant’s employment were extraordinary and unusual as a result of the changes at her facility. The supreme court discounted the fact that many of the individual incidents in the claimant’s new environment were the same as before and focused on what was different about the new environment. The court stated:

The record indicates that in the spring of 1997, with the new mix of passive and aggressive patients in Claimant’s unit, behavior problems escalated because of the “domino effect” created when an aggressive patient acted out. Claimant had never before worked with a mix of passive and aggressive patients. No other unit had a mix of passive and aggressive patients. In fact, Department made changes after a DHEC survey criticized Department for housing diverse patients together.

377 S.C. at 350, 660 S.E.2d at 262.

The supreme court faulted the commission and the court of appeals for focusing on the fact that nurses had always dealt with aggressive patients and had even been injured by them before. Id. Thus, the supreme court rejected an analysis of similarities in individual incidents and focused instead on the differences caused by changes in long-term conditions. Id. (“A review of the record, however, indicates that the testimony [of similarities in individual incidents] relied upon is taken completely out of context and does not support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion.”). Focusing on the changes in overall, long-term employment conditions, the supreme court noted that neither of the two witnesses relied on by the court of appeals testified “that it was usual for a nurse to deal with a mix of passive and aggressive patients.”377 S.C. at 350-51, 660 S.E.2d at 262 (emphasis added). The supreme court found the overall, long-term changes in employment conditions resulting in a “mix of passive and aggressive patients” was an extraordinary and unusual condition of employment which caused the claimant’s mental-mental injury and instructed the commission to award benefits. 377 S.C. at 351-52, 660 S.E.2d at 262-63.

Here, the commission applied the proper test for determining whether Investigator Martinez‘ conditions of employment were extraordinary and unusual. See Shealy v. Aiken Cnty., 341 S.C. 448, 459, 535 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2000) (holding the standard to be applied is whether the conditions of employment were extraordinary or unusual compared to the normal conditions of claimant’s employment); see also Doe, 377 S.C. at 349-50, 660 S.E.2d at 262 (discussingShealy). The commission described some of the investigations which “were a usual and ordinary part of [Investigator Martinez‘] job.” Those investigations included one “in which a child’s head had been run over by a dump truck” and “an automobile accident in which an injured teenager had died in her arms.” The majority described other similar investigations conducted by Investigator Martinez. Describing how she conducted investigations such as those, the commission made this factual finding:

7. When claimant went to a crime scene, she would take up to 100 photographs and move the body to investigate anything underneath the body. She also took measurements and put up barriers to prevent people from seeing the accident scene. This was a part of her usual and ordinary job.

The commission then focused on whether what she did on April 4, 2005, was extraordinary and unusual compared to her usual and ordinary job and made this factual finding:

10. [Captain] Steve Denton testified that the accident scene of the child’s death on April 4, 2005 was a terrible sight but that Claimant was doing her ordinary job that day in investigating the death of the child. [Captain] Denton required the Claimant to stay and perform the accident investigation because that was her job. The fact that the death scene involved the death of a child of a former Spartanburg County Deputy Sheriff did not remove the situation from being a part of her regular job.

In Doe, the supreme court ruled that despite the similarities in individual incidents, there were changes in the overall, long-term conditions of the claimant’s employment, making the conditions which caused the injury extraordinary and unusual. 377 S.C. at 349-50, 660 S.E.2d at 262. Here, Investigator Martinez does not argue that there were any long-term changes. Rather, she argues that her mental-mental injury arose out of a single investigation. When she finished this particular investigation, she continued working on the same type of cases in the same manner as before. Had she been switched to an overall pattern of investigating only particularly traumatic cases, then perhaps the reasoning of Doe would apply. Under these facts, however, it does not.

Finally, I emphasize that one particular event in a claimant’s work environment can constitute extraordinary and unusual conditions such that any resulting mental-mental injury would be compensable. See, e.g., Powell v. Vulcan Materials Co., 299 S.C. 325, 326, 384 S.E.2d 725, 725 (1989) (affirming commission’s award of benefits where claimant suffered “mental, 239*239emotional, and psychological injury” following a single-incident verbal altercation with a supervisor). In such a case, however, whether the individual event meets the test for extraordinary and unusual set forth by the supreme court in Shealy is a question of fact for the commission to decide. On appeal from the commission’s decision, if substantial evidence supports it, an appellate court must affirm. Forrest v. A.S. Price Mech., 373 S.C. 303, 306, 644 S.E.2d 784, 785-86 (Ct. App.2007). In this case, the circuit court never ruled as to whether substantial evidence supports the commission’s decision that Investigator Martinez‘ conditions of employment were not extraordinary and unusual. As the majority has explained, the commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

B. Proximate Cause

The circuit court also reversed the commission’s finding of a lack of proximate cause. The circuit court stated:

[T]he Commission’s finding [as to proximate cause] is clearly erroneous, applying the substantial evidence standard of review, because the only conclusion that can be drawn from the medical information is that there exists the necessary showing of proximate cause to link the accident investigation of her friend’s child’s death and her mental breakdown.

In making this statement, the circuit court ignored the following findings of fact made by the commission:

8. Claimant had other stressors in April 2005 that were not work related, including the death from AIDS of her ex-husband’s cousin with whom she was very close. Claimant was treated for anxiety, insomnia, and depression from these non-work related situational stressors including medications and hospitalization.

9. Claimant did not mention the investigation involving the death of a child on April 4, 2005 until approximately four months later after being hospitalized for an emotional breakdown.

16. Claimant failed to prove that the accident investigation on April 4, 2005 was the proximate cause of her mental breakdown, said finding being based on all the evidence in the record.

The record contains ample evidence to support these findings. For example, on April 19, 2005, two weeks after Investigator Martinez‘ investigation into the death of her fellow officer’s child, she went to her family doctor for stress. In the medical note for that visit, the doctor wrote:

She is very upset and crying. A very close friend and relative, a cousin with whom she was very close over the years, passed away yesterday. She is very upset about it. They were very close ever since they were little kids. She is very upset that she did not get to the hospital in time to say goodbye before he passed away.

Investigator Martinez returned to her family doctor on eight occasions between April 25 and June 24, 2005, and did not mention stress from the April 4 investigation even once. On August 7, 2005, Investigator Martinez was admitted to Spartanburg Regional Medical Center for “behavior suggesting psychiatric problems.” Her treating psychiatrist diagnosed her with Benzodiazepine withdrawal delirium, depression, and anxiety disorder. In the discharge summary on August 9, 2005, the psychiatrist stated: “The patient apparently had recent problems with uncontrollable hypertension and also had problems with anxiety, insomnia and depression related to the death of her best friend who apparently was a male cousin.” Martinez was admitted to the Carolina Center for Behavioral Health for a psychiatric evaluation on August 10, 2005. One of the forms filled out for this admission contains a section entitled “Precipitating Events,” in which it is noted that Martinez stated: “My cousin died mid April 2005 and I took Xanax for my nerves. I stopped taking Xanax 1-2 weeks ago and became psychotic.”

These medical records contain no mention of the April 4, 2005 investigation or any other job-related stress. In light of these facts, the commission’s determination that the claimant failed to prove proximate cause is supported by substantial evidence. The circuit court erred in reversing the finding.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

[2] Although the accident occurred in Greer, South Carolina, the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office conducted the forensic investigation because the Greer Police Department did not have a forensic unit.

[3] Martinez did not know Anthony Johnson’s daughter. Therefore, the lack of a personal relationship is additional evidence that Martinez did not experience an “unusual or extraordinary condition” on April 4, 2005 because the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office policy specifically contemplates employees investigating scenes in which they are acquainted with the victim.

[4] Doe v. S.C. Dep’t of Disabilities & Special Needs, 377 S.C. 346, 660 S.E.2d 260 (2008).