South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Workers’ Compensation Tribunal’s Decision in Temporary Worker’s Case

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Under South Carolina workers’ compensation law, a person who is hurt at work may be entitled to payment of certain benefits. These include medical care, temporary total disability, and permanent partial disability in many cases. If an employee disagrees with his or her award, there are steps that can be taken to appeal the administrative law judge’s ruling. On appeal, the employee has the burden of convincing the reviewing court that an error was made by the workers’ compensation commission.

Facts of the Case

In a recent unreported case, the plaintiff allegedly injured his left foot while working for the defendant, a temporary staffing agency. He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against the defendant and its workers’ compensation insurance carrier (also a defendant in his suit). Displeased with the holding of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission regarding his claim, the plaintiff sought review from the appellate court.

The Court’s Ruling

In his appeal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the plaintiff argued some 19 issues, including averments that a single commissioner had violated his rights by failing to enforce certain subpoenas, failing to accept deposition testimony, and providing insufficient notice of the review hearing. After considering each of the issues raised by the plaintiff on appeal, the court affirmed the commission’s decision. With regard to four of the issues presented by the plaintiff, the court held that the appellate panel had not erred in reviewing only the specific issue that the appeal panel ordered to be remanded at the remand hearing. As to four other additional issues raised by the plaintiff, the court of appeals determined that such issues had not been properly preserved for review by an appellate court. The court also sided with the defendants on the issue of whether the appellate panel had acted properly in refusing to extend the time for oral arguments.

Federal Court in South Carolina Grants Summary Judgment to Grocery Store in Slip and Fall Case

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina premises liability case, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove that a dangerous condition on another’s property caused injury to him or her. The plaintiff must also prove that the defendant either directly caused the condition or that, in the exercise of due diligence, the defendant should have discovered and corrected the condition.

In many slip and fall cases, the defendant will argue that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff has not met his or her initial burden of proof. In other words, the defendant asks the court to rule in its favor prior to trial because, even if everything the plaintiff has said in his or her complaint is true, the defendant cannot be held liable under the law. Talking to a lawyer early on and securing evidence such as photographs of the accident scene, video surveillance, and statements from eyewitnesses can be helpful in seeing that the plaintiff has his or her day in court.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, the plaintiff was a woman who filed suit against the defendant grocery store, seeking monetary compensation for a torn meniscus in her knee that she allegedly suffered when she slipped and fell in a “brown substance” (which looked like, and may have been, pudding) on the store’s floor while pushing her shopping cart through the dairy aisle in August 2015 . The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was no competent evidence proving that it placed the brown substance on the floor or that it had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition.

South Carolina Appellate Court Holds That Automobile Liability Insurer Owes No Coverage for Infant Child’s Death from Complications of Hypothermia After Being Left in Father’s Truck

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

A successful legal claim following a serious personal injury or loved one’s wrongful death requires several steps. First and foremost in any South Carolina personal injury lawsuit, the party seeking to recover money damages for another’s failure to act in a reasonably prudent manner must be able to prove that the defendant breached a duty of care owned to the plaintiff, thereby proximately causing him or her legal damages.

While the plaintiff will not be able to recover money damages without proof of the elements of negligence, it is equally true that proof of negligence will not necessarily result in a successful judgment or settlement. One reason for this is that most defendants in negligence cases do not have the independent means to compensate the negligence victim or his or her family.

Rather, most individuals (and businesses and governmental entities, as well) rely heavily on liability insurance coverage to pay out any monies that are ultimately decided (or agreed) are due the accident victim. Without insurance coverage, fair compensation is unlikely, even in an obvious case of negligence.

South Carolina Supreme Court Says that PIP Cannot Be Offset by Workers’ Compensation Benefits

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In many South Carolina car accident cases, there is only one real issue: the amount of damages to which the injured party is entitled to receive from the at-fault defendant’s motor vehicle liability insurer.

Sometimes, however, there are other issues, such as how the payment of benefits under other insurance policies – including workers’ compensation insurance, personal injury protection, etc. – factor into the equation. When such dispute cannot be settled among the parties, it is up to the courts to decide.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a woman who was reportedly injured in a work-related motor vehicle accident. Her employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier paid some $40,000 in medical expenses related to the accident. After the defendant automobile accident insurance company refused to pay the plaintiff’s personal injury protection (PIP) limit of $5000, the plaintiff and her husband filed suit, asserting claims for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay insurance benefits.

South Carolina Supreme Court Holds that Insurance Company Had No Duty to Offer UIM Coverage Despite Modifications to Motorcycle Accident Policy

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In an ideal world, every consumer would have a thorough understanding of the many different types of car, truck, and motorcycle insurance that may be available to them and be able to make an informed decision about coverage.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a South Carolina motor vehicle accident to make people realize that they don’t know as much as they thought that they did about their insurance coverage – and that they don’t have nearly as much coverage as they thought they had.

Realizing that the “full coverage insurance” that you thought you had does not include optional coverage like uninsured motorist coverage can be a very unpleasant discovery, especially if you have been hurt by someone else’s negligence and have medical bills mounting up due to the wreck.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Says Workers’ Compensation Appellate Panel Should Have Made More Detailed Findings On Issue of Whether Alleged “Dependent” Was Entitled to Death Benefits

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Usually, the claimant in a South Carolina workers’ compensation case is a worker who was injured on the job. The “injury” may be a result of an accident, repetitive or cumulative trauma, or even a work-related illness.

When a worker dies as a result of an accident for which he or she would otherwise be entitled to collect workers’ compensation benefits, his or her surviving spouse and dependents – as those terms are specifically defined under South Carolina’s workers’ compensation statutes – may be entitled to death benefits.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Court Holds that Bigamous “Husband” Could Not Share in Wrongful Death Settlement Proceeds

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

Most South Carolina wrongful death cases focus on whether the defendant is liable for the death of the plaintiff’s loved ones, but some cases have a different issue – such as the question of who is entitled to share in the proceeds of a settlement entered in the case by the agreement of the parties.

Family relationships matter very much to such determinations, as does strict compliance with the law when it comes to issues such as what constitutes a valid marriage.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Supreme Court Says Notice Issue in a Workers’ Compensation Appeal Should Be Reviewed Under “Substantial Evidence” Standard

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

If you have been hurt in a work-related accident, you may be putting off the formal filing of your South Carolina workers’ compensation claim, hoping your employer will “do the right thing” or that your injury will improve on its own. It is very important that you take action to protect your legal rights sooner, rather than later, since the process of pursuing a work injury claim can sometimes be very difficult and time-consuming, and failing to take timely action can even result in a complete bar to recovery in some cases.

Unfortunately, it is not unusual for an employer to deny a workers’ compensation claim on the grounds that the employee was not hurt in the course and scope of his or her employment, that an injury was pre-existing, or that the employee did not give timely notice of his or her injury.

As a recent case illustrates, there are many potential steps to receiving workers’ compensation benefits when an employer resists paying a claim. The sooner the injured worker files his or her claim, the sooner his or her attorney can get to work on holding the employer accountable for what is owed.

Trial Court Should Have Reviewed Documents Related to Settling Defendant’s Agreement in Order to Determine Set Off, According to South Carolina Court of Appeals

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In a South Carolina personal injury lawsuit, it is not unusual for several individuals, businesses, or governmental entities to be named as defendants. By the time the trial rolls around, however, there may be significantly fewer defendants – perhaps, only one.

The reasons for this are numerous. Some defendants may have been dismissed from the lawsuit by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment. Others may have been voluntarily dismissed from the case by the plaintiff(s) for strategic reasons. A settlement may have occurred that dismissed some defendants from the lawsuit while retaining others.

If the reason for the dwindling number of defendants is a settlement, a question sometimes arises as to the nature and extent of the information about that settlement to which the remaining defendants are entitled.

South Carolina Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration in Lawsuit by Representative of Deceased Rehabilitation Facility Patient

Published on: May 21, 2020 | by Patrick E. Knie

In recent years, there has been a trend toward alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration, in some kinds of cases, including South Carolina nursing home abuse cases.

It is important to note that the reason for this trend is not because injured individuals or the families of those who have suffered a wrongful death have willingly and knowingly decided that they would rather have their legal disputes resolved by an arbitrator rather than by a judge and jury. Instead, many would-be defendants have managed to sneak arbitration clauses into the mounds of documents that must be signed at certain health care facilities. Fortunately, not all such alleged “agreements” are enforceable by the courts.

Facts of the Case