South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

Appellate Court Agrees With Workers’ Compensation Commission That South Carolina Man Was Employee, Not Independent Contractor

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Spartanburg and Greenville workers’ compensation cases are sometimes met with much resistance from the employers of those who are injured, as well as from their insurance companies.

This is unfortunate because, very often, workers’ compensation is the injured worker’s only means of obtaining much-needed medical care and temporary disability benefits. Although it is wise to consult an attorney any time you are dealing with an insurance company, this is especially true in disputed workers’ compensation cases. Quality legal representation can make all of the difference.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Appeals Court Affirms Judgment Against Employee in Workers’ Compensation Case

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Those who have been hurt at work have certain legal rights, including the right to seek certain benefits like medical care and temporary disability payments from their employer (or the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier).

Although the compensation available in a South Carolina workers’ compensation case is typically less than what the worker could have recovered in a traditional negligence claim, the trade-off is that the worker does not have to prove fault on the part of the employer. However, the worker does have to prove that he or she suffered a compensable injury in the course and scope of his or her employment. If the employer denies the claim, it may take months or even years for the case to be resolved.

Facts of the Case

South Carolina Supreme Court Says Mother Should Have Been Allowed to Amend Medical Malpractice Claim to Add Individual Claim for Child’s Medical Expenses

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

When someone is a victim of medical malpractice, he or she may incur substantial medical expenses because of his or her injuries. When the injured person is a minor child, it is usually the parent who bears the financial responsibility for those expenses. The state’s highest court entertained a South Carolina medical malpractice case earlier this month in which the issue was whether a minor had the right to sue for his or her medical expenses or whether only a parent had that right.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case under consideration by the South Carolina Supreme Court, the plaintiff was the mother of a minor child who allegedly suffered an injury during her birth in 2007. The mother, acting as the child’s next friend, brought two separate medical malpractice actions in York County, one in 2009 against the doctor and medical group and one in 2012 against the medical center. The lawsuits were consolidated.

Worker Was Entitled to Presumption of Total Disability, According to South Carolina Supreme Court

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

A difference of just 2% might not sound like much, but it can make a huge difference in deciding how much an injured worker will receive under South Carolina’s scheduled-member workers’ compensation statute.

This is because a worker who has suffered 50% of more loss of use of his or her back due to an on-the-job injury is presumed to be totally disabled, while a worker with only 48% loss of use of his or her back is presumed to be only partially disabled.

South Carolina Supreme Court Answers Certified Questions in Federal Product Liability Case Arising from Gas Tank Fire

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Product liability claims can involve multiple theories of liability by the plaintiff – and also a variety of possible defenses by the manufacturer, wholesaler, or seller against which the plaintiff’s claims are made.

Recently, the state’s highest court was asked by a federal district court to answer certain certified questions of state law in a product liability lawsuit filed by a victim of a fiery crash in Greenville County, South Carolina, that occurred in November 2012.

South Carolina Supreme Court Refuses Non-Settling Defendants’ Attempt to Add Settling Party as a Third-Party Defendant in Car Crash Case

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Suppose that three people are involved in an automobile accident, and the parties agree that one of the three was completely faultless with regard to the cause of the crash.

How should the issue of fault be resolved between the remaining two drivers? What if the innocent party settles his negligence claim with one of the drivers but not the other?

The state’s highest court was recently called upon to rule in a case involving such a situation.

Federal District Court in South Carolina Grants Summary Judgment in Favor of Store After Customer’s Slip and Fall

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

When members of the general public think about lawsuits in which a person has been injured or killed due to another party’s negligence (such as a South Carolina premises liability case), they may envision the case going to trial and a jury deciding whether the defendant was negligent and, if so, the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff is entitled.

However, not every plaintiff gets to have a jury decide his or her case. Often, the defendant in a personal injury or wrongful death case will file what’s known as a “motion for summary judgment.” In reviewing such a motion, the trial court judge is called upon to decide whether, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are genuine issues of material fact. Only if the answer is “yes” does the case proceed to a jury trial.

Facts of the Case

Federal Court Certifies Questions of Law to South Carolina Supreme Court in Worker’s Third-Party Negligence Action: What, if Anything, Should the Jury Be Told About Companion Workers’ Compensation Claim?

Published on: December 31, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

When an employee is hurt at work, he or she is usually limited to benefits available under the workers’ compensation laws. Such benefits typically include past and future medical care, temporary disability, or permanent disability payments. Under the “exclusive remedy doctrine,” the employee cannot file a traditional negligence lawsuit against his or her employer.

However, when a worker is hurt due to a third party’s negligent conduct, he or she has the option of proceeding in tort against the responsible party. (The employee may be required to repay amounts received from workers’ compensation if the third-party claim is successful.) Such cases can be complex, especially if the employer also contributed to the cause of the accident. A recent case is illustrative.

South Carolina Supreme Court Finds Reversible Error With Regard to Weekly Benefits Rate of Nightclub Employee

Published on: April 28, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Many issues can arise in a typical workers’ compensation case – disputes concerning the nature and extent of the employee’s injuries, whether the employee is able to return to work following an injury, and the amount of compensation to which the employee is entitled if he or she suffers from a permanent partial disability are all commonplace.

In a recent case that already reached the state supreme court once before (in 2015), the issue was the amount of weekly benefits to which the employee was entitled, based on her income at the time of her injury. Continue Reading ›

South Carolina Appeals Court Finds That Woman’s Medical Malpractice Case is Barred by “the Law of the Case” Doctrine, Due to Previous Litigation

Published on: April 28, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

The fact is that most civil lawsuits are settled outside court. Of those that are tried, only a small percentage are appealed. Fewer still are appealed past the intermediate court of appeals and on to the state’s highest court. Still, there are a few cases that make it all the way to the South Carolina Supreme Court, only to be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

When this happens, there are several rules that come into play regarding the effect that the court’s previous resolution of certain issues will have on the next round of litigation.