South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

In Battle Between Workers’ Compensation Carriers, South Carolina Appeals Court Says First Carrier Is Responsible for Alleged Second Injury

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

South Carolina workers’ compensation cases can sometimes drag on for years, especially if the injured worker allegedly suffers subsequent injuries to the same part of the body. Not all such litigation is pursued by the injured worker against his or her employer, however.

Sometimes, multiple insurance companies seek the courts’ direction as to which is responsible for payment of a workers’ claims. This can happen when the injuries happen at times in which a single employer had different workers’ compensation carriers or if the worker changes jobs and his or her employers are insured by different companies.

Facts of the Case

In a case appealed from the Richland County Circuit Court, the claimant was a man who allegedly hurt his back while working for a particular employer in 2002. The plaintiff was a workers’ compensation insurance company that paid benefits owed to the claimant as a result of this injury. The claimant reached maximum medical improvement in the summer of 2003 and, thereafter, began working for a different employer insured by the defendant workers’ compensation carrier. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Court of Appeals Finds that Father Who Contributed Nothing to Pre-Natal or Birthing Expenses Could Not Share in Child’s Wrongful Death Claim Proceeds

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Most South Carolina medical malpractice lawsuits revolve around the issues of whether the defendant health care provider breached the applicable standard of care and, if so, the amount of compensation due to the victim.However, sometimes there are other issues, such as in a recent case in which the malpractice action was settled, but a dispute arose as to who was entitled to share in the monetary proceeds paid by the allegedly negligent medical providers.

Facts of the Case

In a recently decided appellate case, the plaintiff was the mother of a minor child who died an hour after she was born. The mother brought a wrongful death and survival action against the child’s medical providers, seeking damages for medical malpractice. The mother named the defendant and another man (who was later dismissed from the case) as putative fathers. After the lawsuit was settled, the mother petitioned the trial court to deny the defendant any interest in the wrongful death proceeds, relying on South Carolina Code § 15-51-40. The probate court agreed with the mother that the defendant had failed to provide reasonable support and was thus not entitled to share in the proceeds of the settlement.

Worker Not Entitled to Lump Sum Payout in South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

When an injured worker files a South Carolina workers’ compensation claim, he or she may be entitled to several kinds of benefits. These benefits may include paid medical care, temporary total disability, and/or permanent partial or permanent total disability payments.

The amount of money that the claimant ultimately receives is based in part upon his or her average weekly wage at the time of the accident or illness giving rise to the claim for benefits. Once a determination has been made that the worker is, in fact, entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, the worker may seek a lump sum payment of part (or all) of the benefits that the employer or its workers’ compensation insurance carrier is ordered to pay.

He or she is not automatically entitled to a lump sum payout, and such a request may be met with great resistance.

Dispute Regarding Self-Insured Pool for Workers’ Compensation Liability Was at Least Partially Derivative Under South Carolina Law

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Under the law of South Carolina, employers who do business in the state must provide a way for injured employees to receive the benefits to which they are entitled upon the filing of a South Carolina workers’ compensation claim.

There are generally two ways in which this can be accomplished. The employer may purchase a workers’ compensation liability insurance policy or it may qualify as a “self-insured” employer. With regard to the self-insured option, two or more employers in businesses of a similar nature may be allowed to enter into an agreement to pool their workers’ compensation liabilities for the purpose of qualifying as self-insurers.

Facts of the Case

In a case originating in the Richland County Circuit Court, the plaintiffs were members of a home builders’ association that, some years prior, had created a self-insurers’ fund in order to fulfill their obligations under the law. After the defendant board of trustees announced their intent to wind down the fund and set up a new mutual insurance company, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to challenge the board’s authority to use the fund’s assets in that manner. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Supreme Court Considers Insurance Guaranty Association’s Obligations Following Fatal Truck Accident

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

The amount of insurance coverage available in a South Carolina car accident case is one of the most important considerations in determining the overall value of a claim filed by an injured person or the family of an accident victim.

As a practical matter, if there is no insurance, recovery of fair compensation is next to impossible. (Hence the expression, “You can’t get blood out of a turnip.”) But, what happens when the defendant does have liability insurance but the insurance company becomes insolvent?

Facts of the Case

In a case recently considered on appeal, the plaintiffs were the personal representatives of the estate of a truck driver who was killed in a fatal, multi-vehicle accident that occurred in 2008. After a decade of litigation involving several different defendants and multiple theories of liability, the issue before the Bamberg County Circuit Court was the amount of money damages that the defendant insurance guaranty association owed the plaintiffs after one of the insurance companies involved in the case became insolvent. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Appeals Court Agrees that Radio Communications Worker’s Fatal Heart Attack is Compensable for Purposes of Workers’ Compensation

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

A South Carolina workers’ compensation case can be very challenging. Even though these laws were purportedly put in place to protect employees and their families against financial hardship due to a work-related injury or death, many workers’ compensation insurance companies will fight hard to avoid paying a claim.

There are several levels of review in such matters, beginning with the decision of a single commissioner and ending in the state supreme court. Most contested cases are settled or otherwise resolved somewhere along this lengthy process.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff in a recent (unreported) case decided by the South Carolina Court of Appeals was the surviving spouse of a 58-year-old man who worked for the defendant county in its radio and telecommunications department. In September 2014, a criminal suspect barricaded himself in an apartment, leading to a nine-hour standoff that involved over 100 first responders. Two officers were shot during the altercation, and one died. The suspect also died as a result of a gunfire exchange with deputies. The decedent suffered an apparent heart attack while monitoring the county’s radio system during the standoff. He died a short time later.

Federal Court in South Carolina Dismisses Truck Accident Litigant’s Declaratory Judgment Action for Lack of “Actual Controversy”

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

A popular idiomatic phrase goes something like, “Don’t make a federal case out it!” Generally, “making a federal case” out of something means that it has been built up or exaggerated beyond what is reasonable, but, like most common phrases, there is a nugget of truth behind the words.

For instance, a lawsuit arising from a South Carolina truck accident will tend to be more expensive, more time consuming, and more difficult than a similar action filed in state court. For this reason, it is not unusual for a defendant to “remove” a state case to federal court if the federal court has concurrent jurisdiction. Under certain circumstances, the plaintiff may ask the federal court to remand the case to state court.

As one might expect, all of these legal shenanigans can add months, or even years, to the time it takes the plaintiff to recover fair compensation for personal injuries or a loved one’s wrongful death caused by the negligence of the defendant(s).

Negligence Case Against Insurance Agent Dismissed on Summary Judgment, South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

While most people understand that they “need insurance” for certain situations, such as car accident, a house fire, or a slip and fall accident on their premises, few individuals or business owners truly understand all of the different types of insurance that are available, how they differ from one another, and what the best choice may be for a particular situation.

Accordingly, it is not unusual for those who are not insurance professionals themselves to rely heavily on their insurance agent to provide appropriate coverage. When the agent does not provide reliable advice, a South Carolina negligence lawsuit may be possible against the agent or the agency that employed him or her.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) case from the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the plaintiff was a woman who purchased a policy of commercial automobile insurance for her daycare business in April 2010. After a parent drove a car through the wall of the plaintiff’s business, causing personal injuries to the plaintiff, the plaintiff sought coverage for her injuries. According to the plaintiff, she thought that she had purchased coverage “for every person who went in and out of the building, including herself.” The defendants, the insurance agent and agency from whom the plaintiff purchased her policy, denied her claim.

South Carolina Court Says Seller in Product Liability Claim Was Not Protected by Manufacturer’s Bankruptcy

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

It is not unusual for one or more of the defendants in a South Carolina product liability lawsuit to seek federal bankruptcy protection. This is especially true if a particular product has been accused of causing numerous serious personal injuries or wrongful death.

The effects of the bankruptcy can vary, depending upon the particular situation at hand. In some cases, a bankruptcy can effectively terminate a pending state court lawsuit, forcing the litigant(s) to pursue their claim along with other creditors in the bankruptcy case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent South Carolina Court of Appeals case, the plaintiffs were the mother and guardian ad litem of a five-year-old child who allegedly suffered severe burn injuries during the November 2010 explosion of a portable gasoline container manufactured by one defendant and sold by the other. The plaintiffs’ filed respective lawsuits against the defendants, the maker and a retail seller of the container, in Hampton County Circuit Court in November 2013, asserting claims for product liability, strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligence. (The suits were later consolidated.)

Dismissal of Workers’ Compensation Case Affirmed by South Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: May 22, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina workers’ compensation case, an injured employer has certain obligations that must be complied with before he or she can receive benefits from his or her employer or its insurance company. Among these requirements are a timely reporting of the injury and the filing of certain paperwork with the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission (if the employer believes that he or she is entitled to other benefits in addition to those already paid by the employer or insurer).

If the employee is displeased with the determination of the commission in his or her case, he or she has a right to file an appeal. However, the burden of proof is on the employee to convince the reviewing tribunal that the commission’s decision was in error.

Facts of the Case

In an unpublished case recently considered on appeal, the plaintiff was a man who sought review of a decision of the Richland County Circuit Court with regard to his claim for workers’ compensation benefits he alleged were due him under South Carolina law. The trial court dismissed his suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also held that the plaintiff had failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action against the defendant commission.