South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

South Carolina Court of Appeals Finds That Worker Was Not Entitled to Medical Benefits for Compensable Work Injury – Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLC

Published on: February 5, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Timeliness is important in any injury case, be it a negligence action or a work injury case. In addition to the statute of limitations for filing a claim in a court of law, there may be a requirement to give formal notice in some situations.

For instance, giving notice of a work-related injury is critically important to success in a workers’ compensation case. Ideally, this notice should be in writing. As a recent case illustrates, verbal notice alone can result in numerous issues that can jeopardize a claimant’s case.

South Carolina Appeals Court Sides with Employer in Workers’ Compensation Case in Which Prior Injury Was an Issue – Turner v. SAIIA Construction

Published on: February 5, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Most workers in South Carolina are entitled to receive workers’ compensation benefits if they are injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment. These benefits include not only necessary medical treatment but also partial reimbursement for lost wages while a worker is temporarily unable to work and compensation for permanent disability or disfigurement.

Although it is generally easier for a worker to recover benefits through the current workers’ compensation system than under the negligence system that preceded it, the burden of proof is still on the employee to show that he or she was hurt on the job and is entitled to payments for a temporary or permanent disability.

If an employee is unable to show that he is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, his claim will be denied by the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Federal District Court in South Carolina Grants Summary Judgment to Defendants in WaveRunner Product Liability Lawsuit – Hickerson v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.

Published on: February 5, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

When a particular product is unreasonably dangerous or defective, a person who is injured thereby has a legal right to file a product liability lawsuit against the manufacturer, wholesaler, seller, or others in the product’s chain of distribution. Possible damages in such a lawsuit include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and loss of consortium.

Common legal theories in product liability lawsuits include strict product liability, negligence, design defects, manufacturing defects, marketing defects (such as failure to warn), and breach of warranty. In response to a product liability claim, a defendant may assert various defenses, including a plaintiff’s alleged alteration of the product or misuse of the product.

South Carolina Appeals Court Finds That Woman Presented Evidence of Negligence After Fall on Outback Steakhouse Curb Ramp – Jackson v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC

Published on: February 5, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Building a case of negligence against a person or business that one believes caused an accident (such as a car wreck or a slip and fall at a restaurant) is a multi-step process. The first step is establishing that the party from whom the plaintiff seeks to recover money damages owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff. Whether or not a duty exists is usually a legal question that revolves around the relationship between the parties. The second step of a negligence claim is proving that the defendant breached the duty of care that was owed to the plaintiff; this is usually a factual question. The remaining elements are harm to the plaintiff and causation between the defendant’s breach of duty and the harm to the plaintiff.

When the parties disagree about whether the plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence of these elements to proceed to trial, the trial court may be called upon to decide (via a summary judgment motion) whether the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, even if all of the plaintiff’s allegations are construed in the light most favorable to him or her. A party aggrieved by a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment has a right to appeal the court’s order to a higher court.

Federal Court in South Carolina Denies Summary Judgment on Interpretation of “Liquor Liability” Insurance Policy

Published on: February 5, 2017 | by Patrick E. Knie

Everyone who drives an automobile should have liability insurance to pay medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering to a passenger, motorist, or pedestrian who is injured as a result of the driver’s own negligence. Otherwise, any judgment in a negligence lawsuit brought against the driver could be collected from his or her personal assets.

There are many types of liability insurance in addition to automobile liability polices. You might be interested to know that various types of businesses have special liability insurance policies to cover business-specific negligence claims. This includes businesses that sell or serve liquor. Bars and nightclubs may purchase this insurance to cover a judgment against them as a result of a “dram-shop” action based on the negligent sale or over-serving of alcohol that results in injuries or death to a third party.

Saga Continues in Case Arising from South Carolina Malpractice Actions of Impostor “Doctor” – Agape Senior Primary Care, Inc. v. Evanston Insurance Company

Published on: September 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Several months ago, we told you about a federal court of appeals’ decision in a case in which a medical malpractice insurance company sought a declaratory judgment as to its responsibility to cover certain acts of malpractice after it was discovered that a fake nursing home “doctor” had illegally assumed the identity of a physician who was out of the country.

In that decision, the appellate court held that the principles of equity demanded that there be coverage for the innocent co-insureds under the medical malpractice policy that was in place during the impostor’s time at the nursing home.

Now, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, has issued a new opinion in a related matter.

Reviewing the Statistics of Car Crashes in South Carolina

Published on: September 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Since our office regularly represents people who have been seriously injured in a car accident or lost a loved one in a fatal motor vehicle collision, we are well aware of the tragic frequency at which automobile crashes happen on the highways of South Carolina.

Still, it is with great concern that we review the most recent collection of traffic collision facts published by the South Carolina Department of Public Safety.

South Carolina Court Rejects “First Diagnosis Rule” in Measuring Medical Malpractice Statute of Repose – Marshall v. Dodds

Published on: August 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Civil claims not asserted in a timely fashion face dismissal on procedural grounds, regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint. The time period that a claimant has to assert his or her rights varies from case to case, depending upon the state in which the claim arose and the nature of the complaint.

In South Carolina, some claims (including medical malpractice claims) are governed by both a statute of limitations and a statute of repose. Essentially, the statute of repose allows additional time in situations in which the plaintiff does not discover the act of malpractice within the time otherwise allowed by the statute of limitations, but it still puts an outer window on the period for filing suit.

Fast Food Restaurant Owner Granted Summary Judgment After Criminal Attack on South Carolina Drive-Through Customer – Easterling v. Burger King Corporation

Published on: August 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Those who own and operate places of business have a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe for customers and other business invitees. This includes the duty to protect guests from criminal activity in some situations. However, the burden is on the injured person to prove that the property owner acted negligently.

The issue in such cases is often whether the attack was reasonably foreseeable, given such factors as the location of the establishment and any history of violence in the area.

South Carolina Supreme Court Holds that Nursing Home Waived Right to Enforce Arbitration Agreement – Johnson v. Heritage Healthcare of Estill, LLC

Published on: August 28, 2016 | by Patrick E. Knie

Nursing home owners do not like jury trials. In fact, the idea of a jury comprised of everyday men and women determining whether a nursing home neglected a patient and, if so, awarding damages to a patient or the patient’s family is so distasteful to many nursing home owners that they require a patient or his or her representative to sign an arbitration agreement – a contractual promise to arbitrate, rather than litigate through the court system, any disputes that arise between the parties – prior to admission.

When negligence lawsuits and other nursing home cases are determined through arbitration, the patient and the patient’s family lose the right to have a jury decide the case. Often, the family does not fully understand the implication of this distinction at the time the papers are signed.