South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Permanent Total Disability in Workers’ Compensation Case

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

In a South Carolina workers’ compensation case, the burden is on the injured worker to prove that he or she was injured or became ill due to his or her employment. Once this has been accomplished, the obligation then shifts to the employer to provide the benefits to which the plaintiff is entitled under the law.

Depending upon the situation, this may include temporary partial disability benefits, temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial disability benefits, and/or permanent total disability benefits. In most cases, the employer must also provide medical care to the injured worker at its own expense (or that of its workers’ compensation insurance carrier).

When the parties cannot agree on the benefits to which a particular worker is entitled, the state workers’ compensation commission and, if necessary, the courts, will make an adjudication.

South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission Did Not Make Appropriate Findings Necessary to Aid Court of Appeals in Determination of Issues, Thus Triggering Remand

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

There was a time when an employee had to make out a case of negligence if he or she sought monetary compensation following an accidental injury at work. Nowadays, however, there is a workers’ compensation program in place that does not require proof of negligence or fault against the employer. However, the benefits that the worker receives are typically less than what would have been possible in a successful negligence action.

Even in this supposedly stream-lined process, many disputes still occur, and a significant number of workers’ compensation cases find their way into the appellate courts each year.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported South Carolina workers’ compensation case, the plaintiff was a man who alleged that he had been hurt during the course and scope of his employment with the defendant employer. The employer and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier disputed the plaintiff’s claim. A single administrative law judge of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission found that the plaintiff’s alleged clavicle injury was not compensable. Rather, the appellate panel found that the plaintiff’s injury was limited to his right shoulder and also ruled that he was prohibited from raising the issue of temporary partial disability on remand. The plaintiff appealed.

South Carolina Court Affirms $300,000 Jury Verdict in Car Accident Case Against Sheriff’s Department

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

In a South Carolina automobile accident case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant was negligent – that is, that the defendant’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner resulted in damages to the plaintiff.

Once this has been done, the defendant may seek to reduce the jury’s verdict by pointing the finger back at the plaintiff, accusing him or her of also being negligent in causing the accident. It is ultimately up to the jury to decide which side to believe and how much money to award the plaintiff if it finds in his or her favor.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case (unreported), the plaintiff was a woman who was struck by a vehicle as she walked alongside the road. She filed suit against the defendant sheriff department and its employee (who was driving the vehicle that struck her), seeking compensation for her injuries. The Marion County Circuit Court dismissed the employee from the case after finding that he was acting within the course and scope of his official duties as a reserve officer with the defendant sheriff’s department at the time of the accident.

South Carolina Court Affirms Dismissal of Negligence Claim for Failure to State a Claim

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

In a South Carolina personal injury lawsuit, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant owed him or her some type of legal duty and that the defendant either acted in a manner that breached this duty or failed to take an action that a reasonably prudent person would have taken under the circumstances, thus causing harm to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must also show that there was a link of proximate causation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the damages about which the plaintiff complains. Unless the plaintiff can present credible, legally admissible evidence of his or her allegations, his or her case will be dismissed by the court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported case arising in the Anderson County Circuit Court, the plaintiff was a man who filed suit against the defendants, asserting that they were negligence and seeking monetary compensation for his resulting damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s case pursuant to South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Allows Hospital to Claim Charitable Status in Premises Liability Lawsuit

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

Under South Carolina law, a property owner can be held legally liable for injuries suffered by visitors and others who are legally on the owner’s premises, if the injured person can prove that the property owner was negligent. Of course, the property owner will likely attempt to avoid liability in a South Carolina injury accident if at all possible.

Evidence can be subject to spoliation in any lawsuit, but this is especially so in premises liability cases. This can make proving liability more difficult later on. (If you find yourself injured after a slip and fall in at a business, even a quick cellphone picture of the scene taken by you or a friend may prove useful later on.)

If you have been hurt on another’s property, it is important to talk to an attorney as soon as possible regarding your potential claim. Gathering evidence sooner, rather than later, can make recovery of fair compensation much more likely.

South Carolina Supreme Court Remands 10-Year Old Workers’ Compensation Case to Commission’s Appellate Panel for a Final and Appealable Order

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

In a South Carolina workers’ compensation lawsuit, the employee may seek several forms of compensation: temporary total disability benefits, permanent partial or permanent total disability payments, and/or payment of medical expenses.

Some cases involving only minor injuries may be wrapped up in a reasonably timely fashion, while more complicated cases may lag on for a much longer period of time.

Unfortunately, sometimes even a relatively simple case may take a long time to resolve, especially if the employer files repeated appeals.

South Carolina Court Rules that Wrongful Death, Negligent Hiring, and Civil Rights Violation Were Single Occurrence Under Liability Insurance Policy

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

When a loved one’s death is caused by another’s negligence or wrongful death, a South Carolina wrongful death lawsuit is a possibility for those left behind.

Unfortunately, proving a wrongful death claim against the defendant may be only a part of the process of the decedent’s family receiving fair monetary compensation.

In some cases, obtaining a payout from the defendant’s insurance company may be as problematic as obtaining the verdict or judgment against the defendant.

South Carolina Court Holds that Agreement to Arbitrate Nursing Home Negligence Claims Was Unenforceable

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

Healthcare providers like nursing homes and hospitals generally prefer to arbitrate, rather than litigate, South Carolina medical malpractice claims.

There are several reasons for this, including the likelihood that the damages award paid out to a particular medical malpractice victim (or his or her family, if the patient died) will be substantially lower if an arbitrator – rather than a jury – considers the issues in the case.

Of course, not every agreement to arbitrate is legally enforceable. While many such agreements are upheld by the courts, some are declared unenforceable.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Holds that Negligent Party is Not Entitled to Setoff for Amount Paid by Second Tortfeasor

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

Pursing fair compensation for injuries suffered due to another party’s negligence can be difficult. In addition to being required to offer credible evidence on issues such as duty, breach of duty, damages, and proximate cause, the plaintiff may also face difficulties caused by the various insurance companies that are involved in the case.

If a negligent party is not covered by a liability insurance policy, a South Carolina personal injury case can be even more complicated. While insurance companies can fight tooth and nail against a finding of liability against their insured, at least they have the financial resources to pay a judgment when one is finally entered (at least in most cases). Unfortunately, this is not always true of those who do not have insurance.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported case, the plaintiffs were injured by the negligence of the defendant and another individual. After the Orangeburg County Circuit Court granted a default judgment to the plaintiffs, the defendant filed a motion for entry of satisfaction of judgment. The trial court denied the motion. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court had made a mistake in denying her motion because its action had resulted in a double recovery for the plaintiffs because it did not offset a default judgment paid by a second tortfeasor. The defendant also argued that it was an error for the lower tribunal to determine that a default damages hearing did not establish the total amount of damages arising from an indivisible injury.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Finds that Exclusion for Injuries Suffered During Flight from Police or Commission of Felony Was Enforceable in Auto Accident Case

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

In a typical South Carolina car accident lawsuit, it is the injured driver or passenger who files suit. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes, an insurance company files what is called a “declaratory judgment action” in order to seek the court’s guidance as to the applicability and/or extent of coverage of a particular claim or set of claims. Such was the situation in a recent appellate case involving a fatal crash that allegedly followed a police chase in Anderson County, South Carolina.

Facts of the Case

In a case filed in the Anderson County Circuit Court and considered by the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the plaintiff was an automobile accident liability insurance company that sought declaratory relief following a fatal, one-vehicle accident that occurred in 2008. According to the plaintiff, its insured and two other individuals were riding as passengers in the vehicle at the time of the crash; one of the passengers was killed, and the insured and the other passenger were catastrophically injured. The driver, who was apparently not a party to the civil lawsuit filed by the plaintiff insurance company against the defendant insured and passengers, was the defendant in a separate criminal case in which he pled guilty to reckless homicide (a felony offense in South Carolina).

According to the plaintiff, the insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident had an exclusion for bodily injury caused by anyone who was operating the covered vehicle while committing a felony or fleeing from a law enforcement officer. The trial court found that the provisions at issue were unenforceable because (1) the insurance company had failed to inform the insured of the exclusions or otherwise place them conspicuously on the insurance policy; (2) the exclusions were ambiguous; and (3) the exclusions violated the state’s public policy of protecting innocent insureds,
namely the three passengers who were deemed not at fault in causing the collision.
Continue Reading ›