fbpx

Worker’s Compensation Case: Sparks v. Palmetto Hardwood, No. 27229

FACTS:

Palmetto Hardwood, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation that employed the Petitioner.  Through his employment with Palmetto Hardwood, Inc, the Petitioner had suffered three work related injuries: the first two incidents involved an injury to the man’s back, and the third involved a shard of metal flying from a gang saw and striking the man in the head. The Workers’ Compensation Commission found that the man had suffered an injury that was compensable, and found him to be totally and permanently disabled.

The Commission found that the man was to receive five hundred weeks of compensation as a result of his total disability, and metal expenses related to the three injuries.  The case went up for appeal, and they asked the Commission to (1) explain whether the physical brain injury it found bordered on the frivolous was intended to be the same as or different from physical brain damage as used in S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C) and (2).  They argued that it was contradictory for the court to find the man suffered a “compensable injury to the head” with a finding of “no physical brain injury.” Further, on remand, the Commission clarified that the claimant has failed to carry his burden of proof to establish physical brain damage as contemplated by S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10.  However, on appeal the circuit court affirmed the Commission’s order.  Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals.

DISCUSSION AND HOLDING:

The interpretation of a statute is a question of law.  So, if the construction of a statute by the agency that whose duty it is to carry out it’s administration, that agency will be afforded the most respectful consideration.  However, if the agency’s reading of the statute conflicts with the plain language thereof, it must be rejected.  CFRE, LLC v. Greenville County Assessor, 395 S.C. 67, 74.

The idea behind the rule of statutory construction is to “ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature.”  Gilstrap v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 213.  Further, “a statute as a whole must receive practical, reasonable, and fair interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of lawmakers.  When interpreting a statute, the language must be read in a sense that harmonizes with its subject matter and accords with its general purpose.” Id.

S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10(C) reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding the five-hundred-week limitation prescribed in this section or elsewhere in this title, any person determined to be totally and permanently disabled who as a result of a compensable injury is a paraplegic, a quadriplegic, or who has suffered physical brain damage is not subject to the five-hundred-week limitation and shall receive the benefits for life.”

The term physical brain damage is the term at issue here.  The term suggests that the General Assembly intended a more restrictive meaning than the most literal interpretation as proposed by the Petitioner here.  The Statute awards lifetime benefits for someone who is “totally disabled;” they must be permanent physical impairments.  So, the General Assembly intends to give the statute consistent meaning.  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-400(d) (Supp. 2011) used the term “brain damage” in a list of “permanent physical impairments.”  This code is a bit more clearly defined than in S.C. Code Ann. 42-9-110 (d).  Therefore, the court found that the General Assembly intended “physical brain damage” to have meaning consistent with 42-9-400(d); and, this interpretation is consistent with that of the Commission and thus affords proper deference to the agency.

Section 42-9-10(c) also requires that the injury be “physical,” which means “of or pertaining to the body, as distinguished from the mind or spirit; bodily” and “of or pertaining to material things.”  American Heritage Dictionary 935 (2nd College Ed. 1991).  There is nothing in the statute that suggests that this word should be interpreted otherwise, so in this case there is no dispute that Petitioner suffered at lease a mild concussion, by definition a physical injury to the brain.

Petitioner also argues that the General Assembly’s use of the verb phrase “has suffered” indicates that the injury need not result in permanent damage, since this form of the verb requires no more than that the action.  The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation.  They suppose that the term must signify that the action occurred in the past but has continuing effects in the present.

Therefore, the court concluded that the term “physical brain damage” as used in § 42-9-10(C) is physical brain damage that is both permanent and severe.  And, the statute does not require total and permanent disability, but does require that the claimant suffer physical brain damage as a result of the compensable injury.   So, it must be more than a mere concussion, which by definition does not have lasting effects.  If it does have lasting effects, it may be considered compensable. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

If you or someone you know has suffered a work related injury and may be permanently disabled as a result, call the law offices of Reeves, Aiken & Hightower, LLP for a consultation.  If you have questions feel free to call our Baxter Village office in Fort Mill, South Carolina at 803-548-4444, or toll free at 877-374-5999.

SC Workers’ Compensation Amputation Injuries

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.

New Workers’ Compensation Procedure – SC Workers’ Comp Attorney

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…)

Accident at Charleston Boeing Plant – Charleston Workers Comp Attorney

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.

 

 

Farm Accidents 2.5 Times as Likely to Require Amputation-Rock Hill Workers’ Comp Attorneys

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.