Diamond Post
Workers' Compensation Newsletter
South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission Update
David Huffstetler has resigned from the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. His term was to end June 30, 2012. For more details on his resignation, please see the story in today's edition of The Greenville News.
A Brief Workers' Compensation Case Law Update
Recently, the South Carolina Court of Appeals addressed what constitutes an injury by accident under S.C. Code Section 42-1-160. The decision in Landry v. Carolinas Healthcare Systems, Op. No. 4905 (S.C.Ct.App. filed Nov. 9, 2011), confirms that South Carolina courts still focus on whether the particular injury was "unexpected" from the viewpoint of the employee. In Landry, the claimant worked as a radiation therapist and her job duties involved standing on hard surfaces for extended periods of time. The claimant began to have trouble with her feet and developed bunions. She was treated by one physician who attributed her foot condition to structural deformities in her feet that were aggravated by her work conditions, namely standing or walking on her feet for long periods of time. She underwent a bunionectomy, but returned to her job performing the same duties as before. Eventually, the claimant was terminated, and she subsequently filed a Form 50 alleging an injury by accident.
The Court of Appeals began its analysis by noting that an injury is compensable only if it is unexpected, and whether or not it was unexpected is determined from the point of view of the employee. The court relied upon two previous cases wherein the claimants were aware that their condition was caused by their work, but continued their employment in the same capacity. Havird v. Columbia YMCA, 308 S.C. 397, 418 S.E.2d 329 (Ct. App. 1992); Capers v. Flautt, 305 S.C. 254, 407 S.E.2d 660 (Ct. App. 1991). In those cases, the court determined that the injury could not be considered "unexpected." In Landry, the court upheld the continuing validity of those cases and applied similar reasoning to the claim before it. The court stressed that the claimant was aware of her physical symptoms and knew what activities would worsen her condition. The claimant was warned by her doctor, and she knew that her job required her to be on her feet for long periods of time. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held that her claim was not compensable because the worsening of her condition was not unexpected.
To view the Court's decision in the Landry case, please click here.
Feel free to contact GWB with any questions about this case or any of your workers' compensation issues.
|
