Aug 16, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
While great strides have been made in workplace safety, in factories, mills, harbors and every other workplace, injuries on the job causing amputation or requiring amputation still occur. Whether the amputation is caused by a drill press, powered conveyor belt, unshielded or unguarded mechanical power press, power press brake, roll-forming or rollbending machine, food slicer, meat grinder, meat-cutting band saw, printing press, milling machine, hand tools, like shears, grinders, and slitters, or forklifts, doors, or trash compactors, the workers’ compensation recovery is based off of the same factors: time temporarily disabled, type of amputation injury suffered, and permanent total disability or permanent total disability rating.
The workers’ compensation amputation injury recoveries for a given type of amputation injury are calculated by multiplication of a statutory number of weeks times 2/3’s of the average of the worker’s weekly salary over the four quarters before the accident. Below are the maximum recoveries for amputation injuries in workers’ comp, given in weeks and multiplied by the maximum allowed average weekly salary of $705.
- Thumb – 65; Max: $45,825
- Finger – Index (1st) 40; Max: $28,200
- Finger – Middle (2nd) 35; Max: $24,675
- Finger – Ring (3rd) 25; Max: $17,625
- Finger – Little (4th) 20; Max: $14,100
- Toe – Great 35; Max: $24,675
- Toe – Other 10; Max: $7,050
- Amputation: Below 1st joint – Entire Digit
- Amputation: Above base of nail – 1/4 wks; Max: $176.25
- Amputation: Above 1st joint – 1/2 wks; Max: $352.50
- Hand – 185; Max: $130,425
- Arm – 220; Max: $155,100
- Leg – 195; Max: $137,475
- Foot – 140; Max: $98,700
Rock Hill Workers’ Compensation Attorneys
If you have been injured or killed in an accident on the job, call the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation attorneys of Reeves, Aiken and Hightower at 877-374-5999 to talk to an attorney who can help you understand and evaluate your claim and help you get the best recovery possible.
Aug 8, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
The South Carolina Supreme Court just published a new opinion on what an interlocutory appeal is for the purposes of Workers’ Compensation appeals. Bone v. US Food clarified the existing case law and establishes plainly that to appeal a Workers’ Compensation case there must have been a “final judgment,” not merely a judgment “affecting the merits.”
In this Workers’ Compensation case, the Workers’ Compensation Commission at hearing ruled that Bone’s injury was noncompensable. An appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation then upheld the decisiob. Bone then appealed to the Circuit Court (today the appeal would have went to the Court of Appeals, but then the first appeal went to Circuit Court). The Circuit Court overturned the Commission, ruling that the injury was compensable and remanded for determination of damages. Employer then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals which ruled that the appeal was impermissible as an interlocutory appeal not allowed by the APA. Employer appealed this decision to the Supreme Court which affirmed.
The issue at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court was whether the final judgment rule applied to appeals of an appeal. The majority decided yes; the dissent decided no. The majority’s position was that the final judgment rule applied both to appeals from the Commission and appeals from judicial branch review of a Commission decision. The dissent disagreed arguing that that to appeal from judicial branch review only a judgment affecting the merits was necessary.
The Workers Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been injured or killed on the job, you need the help of a serious workers’ compensation attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
(more…)
Jul 30, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
Saturday another accident befell the new Charleston Boeing plant as parts fell out of a 787 engine onto a Charleston, SC runway, starting a fire and shutting down the Charleston airport temporarily. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the problem, along with Boeing and GE (the engine’s manufacturer).
The Charleston area Boeing plant (actually in North Charleston) opened last year and is adjacent to the Charleston Airport. The company employs 3800 workers in the area.
The Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been injured or killed on the job, you need the help of a serious workers’ compensation attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
Jul 26, 2012 | Uncategorized, Workers' Compensation
In workers’ compensation news, it turns out that accidents on the farm are more than 2.5 times more likely to result in amputation than the average work accident. Farmers hurt on the job are at a 11% chance of having an amputation, an astounding number considering how frequent accidents are on the farm.
Also worrying from the employee’s perspective is that the prosthetic limbs provided by doctors will often be too flimsy to allow the worker to return to a farm job.
Amputation injuries do result in hard to deny workers compensation claims, and to the extent employees are unable to find employment due to a prosthetic necessitated by the injury, employees will have an additional workers’ compensation remedy.
Rock Hill Workers’ Compensation Attorneys of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower
If you or someone you know has been injured or killed on the job, you need the help of a serious workers’ compensation attorney like those at Reeves, Aiken & Hightower. Call us at 877-374-5999, or contact us at this link, to schedule a free, private consultation. We can help you evaluate your claim and get you the recovery you deserve.
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:
- 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.
- 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
- the employee “failed [to obtain employment] because of an injury produced handicap,” and
- 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…)
