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

Jul 18, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

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

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

Total Temporary Disability

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

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

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

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

Constructive Refusal of Light Duty Work

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

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

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

The whole opinion is provided below.

The Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower

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

(more…)

Cop’s WC Appeal Fails at the Supreme Court – Bentley v. Spartanburg County

Jul 11, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

In Bentley v. Spartanburg County (the opinion is attached below), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that when a deputy shoots and kills an unarmed suspect he is not entitled to a workers compensation recovery for the mental injuries caused by the shooting.

In workers compensation, employees are entitled to recovery for mental injuries sustained on the job only if the injury is caused by an extraordinary and unusual employment condition.  The court basically decided that cops know that they are liable to have to shoot and kill suspects on the job.  They are told so during training, and they are trained to do the shooting.  Since the officer in question could have expected killing someone on the job, the event was neither extraordinary nor unusual for the purposes of a mental injury recovery under the workers compensation act.

The relevant part of the Workers’ Compensation Act, Section 42-1-16, requires that the employee prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

the employee’s employment conditions causing the stress, mental injury, or mental illness were extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the normal conditions of the particular employment.

The result in this case is almost entirely unremarkable given the current law.

What makes the opinion interesting though is that while the Court ruled against Bentley in this particular case, it also issued a protest against the extraordinary and unusual requirement for mental injury recoveries.  The court recognized that they must judge on the basis of the statute, but they argued that like other states have already done, South Carolina should begin to view mental injury recoveries with less skepticism.

Traditionally, claims of mental injury have been disallowed altogether or subjected to greater hurdles than claims of physical injury.  But recognizing that physical injuries are just as susceptible to fraud and just as injurious, the Court asked the legislature to reconsider the current law.

Justice Hearn wrote a dissent, with Justice Beatty concurred, that embraced the protest in the majority opinion, but argued that even under the current standard, the killing of a suspect is an extraordinary and unusual workplace condition for a Spartanburg deputy sheriff.

South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower

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

(more…)

Employer Liability Beyond Workers Compensation – SC Workers Comp Attorney

Jul 9, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation

As you may know, employees usually have no right to sue their employers for injury outside of workers compensation.  Workers Compensation was formed years ago to provide workers some remedy where they had traditionally had none at all.  The bargain was that employers would give up their virtual immunity from suit by their employees in exchange for a limited, statutory system of compensation for the employees.  That statutory system applies to most situations, but not all.  The statutory system is intended to apply to the most obvious accidents that occur on the job, when an employee is on the job, acting within the scope of employment, and the only relationship between the employer and the employee at the time of the accident is an employer-employee relationship.

The most common situations where the statutory system does not apply, i.e. when the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine does not apply and the employee will be able to recover outside of the workers compensation system, are:

• Dual Capacity
• Intentional Torts
• Liability for Third-parties

Dual Capacity

When an employee is injured by the employer, when the employer is not solely in an employer-employee relationship with the employee, the employee will be able to recover to the extent of the injuries incurred by the employee outside of the employer-employee relationship.  For example, an employee will be able to recover from his or her employer when they are off-duty patronizing their employer’s business.  For a more complicated example, if an employee is at work, using a forklift, and the employer, in addition to being the employee’s employer, was the manufacturer of the forklift, the employee could recover for injuries attributable to design defect in the forklift.

Intentional Torts

If an employer intentionally injures an employee, the employee is entitled to recover under common law causes of action, rather than be constrained to workers comp recoveries.

Liability for Third-Parties

Sometimes employers will contract to hold third parties harmless from claims that arise while those third parties are contracted by the employer.  For Example, a contractor might hold a subcontractor harmless from claims by the contractor’s own employees.  In these cases, the employee will be able to sue the employer under the theory that the employer is indemnifying the third party.

Workers Comp Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower

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