Bone v. U.S. Food Serv.

• Decision Date: 01 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 27153.,27153.
• Citation: 733 S.E.2d 200,399 S.C. 566
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Cathy C. BONE, Respondent, v. U.S. FOOD SERVICE and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Petitioners.

399 S.C. 566

733 S.E.2d 200

Cathy C. BONE, Respondent,

v.U.S. FOOD SERVICE and Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Petitioners.

No. 27153.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Jan. 26, 2012.

Decided Aug. 1, 2012.

Michael E. Chase and Carmelo B. Sammataro, both of Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, of Columbia, for Petitioners.

Blake A. Hewitt and John S. Nichols, both of Bluestein, Nichols, Thompson & Delgado, of Columbia, for Respondent.

Justice BEATTY.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer and its carrier appealed from the circuit court's order that determined the employee's claim was compensable and remanded the matter to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory in Bone v. U.S. Food Service, S.C. Ct.App. Order dated June 30, 2010. This Court has granted the petition of the employer and its carrier for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. We affirm.

I. FACTS

Cathy C. Bone filed a workers' compensation claim form (Form 50) dated August 7, 2007 alleging that she injured her back on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 while employed with U.S. Food Service. Her job consisted of power washing and cleaning the insides of truck trailers that transported food. Bone alleged that she hurt her back when she lifted two pallets inside a trailer to clean under them.

According to Bone she did not report the incident immediately because she needed to continue working and thought she would be okay, but thereafter she developed increasing pain. On Tuesday, July 3, 2007, Bone reported the injury to one of her supervisors, Richard Thompson, shortly after she arrived at work. The same morning she reported her injury, Bone had a flat tire on her way to work, and she called in to advise her office of this fact.

The employer, U.S. Food Service, and its carrier, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America (collectively, “Employer”), denied Bone's claim, disputing that she had injured her back on June 26 and asserting the injury occurred when her tire was changed on July 3.

At the hearing in this matter, Bone testified that she did not physically change the tire herself. Rather, a gentleman who was in the parking lot of a nearby business where she had pulled off the road had changed the tire for her. However, Bone's supervisor, Thompson, noted Bone was crying when she reported her injury. In addition, he recalled that she had told him that “she had to change her tire on her truck,” which he interpreted to mean that she had personally changed the tire. Bone disagreed with this interpretation as well as with the exact wording of her statement. The supervisor did not dispute the fact that Bone had told him that her back injury occurred on June 26 when she lifted the pallets at work.

The hearing commissioner found Bone had failed to meet her burden of showing that she had sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of her employment. An Appellate Panel of the Commission upheld the hearing commissioner's findings and conclusions in full.

Bone appealed to the circuit court, which concluded Bone had sustained a compensable injury, and it reversed and remanded the matter to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this determination. In its order, the circuit court observed the Commission had denied the claim after “ostensibly finding [Bone] injured her back while changing her tire on July 3.” However, the circuit court found Bone gave consistent statements to Employer and her physicians that her injury occurred on June 26, and further found there was “no evidence in the record, let alone substantial evidence, that [Bone] injured her back while changing a tire on the way to work on July 3, 2007.” The circuit court rejected Employer's contention that the supervisor's testimony and the hearing commissioner's finding regarding credibility supported the decision below, stating credibility “goes only to the weight afforded [Bone's] testimony and in no way establishes [that her] injury occurred on July 3.”

The Court of Appeals dismissed Employer's appeal of the circuit court's order on the basis it was interlocutory and did not dispose of the entirety of the case with finality. It held a general appealability statute allowing appeals from interlocutory orders was not applicable in matters before the Commission. Bone v. U.S. Food Service, S.C. Ct.App. Order dated June 30, 2010. In making this determination, the Court of Appeals relied primarily upon the following precedent: Charlotte–Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 387 S.C. 265, 692 S.E.2d 894 (2010) (holding the Administrative Procedures Act is controlling in agency matters and S.C.Code Ann. § 14–3–330, a general appealability statute, is not applicable to agency appeals); Montjoy v. Asten–Hill Dryer Fabrics, 316 S.C. 52, 446 S.E.2d 618 (1994) (stating a circuit court order remanding a case for additional proceedings before an administrative agency is not immediately appealable); and Good v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 201 S.C. 32, 21 S.E.2d 209 (1942) (noting an order that determines issues of law while leaving open questions of fact is not a final order).

II. LAW/ANALYSIS

Employer contends the decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and the appeal reinstated because the circuit court's order was immediately appealable. Employer asserts the decision of the Court of Appeals is based upon a misapplication of precedent. Because of lingering confusion in this area that has arisen after the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), we shall review this precedent to provide clarification and a unified approach to appeals involving administrative agencies.

As an initial point of reference, we note our long-standing rule that the APA governs the review of administrative agency matters and is controlling over any provisions that conflict with its terms. See Lark v. Bi–Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 132, 276 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1981) (holding the APA's standard of review was controlling over conflicting provisions in the workers' compensation act because the APA “purports to provide uniformprocedures before State Boards and Commissions and for judicial review after the exhaustion of administrative remedies”). With this fundamental principle in mind, we turn now to an examination of the decisions cited by the Court of Appeals.

A. Montjoy and the Final Judgment Rule of Section 1–23–390

Montjoy v. Asten–Hill Dryer Fabrics, 316 S.C. 52, 446 S.E.2d 618 (1994) involved an appeal from an order of the circuit court remanding the case to the Commission. We granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis the circuit court's order was interlocutory and not directly appealable. Id. at 52, 446 S.E.2d at 618.

In doing so, we relied upon the final judgment rule articulated in section 1–23–390 of the APA and observed that “we have consistently held that an order of the circuit court remanding a case for additional proceedings before an administrative agency is not directly appealable.” ¹Id. Although Montjoy involved a Commission case, its holding applies to all administrative agencies subject to the APA.

Section 1–23–390 was thereafter amended,² but it still requires an appeal from a “final judgment” of the circuit court and currently provides: “An aggrieved party may obtain a review of a final judgment of the circuit court or the court of appeals pursuant to this article by taking an appeal in the manner provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules as in other civil cases.” S.C.Code Ann. § 1–23–390 (Supp.2011) (emphasis added). The phrase, “in the manner provided by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules as in other civil cases” simply refers to following the same procedures for briefing schedules, preparation of records, etc., as in other civil cases and these rules do not supersede the APA provisions.

B. Charlotte–Mecklenburg: APA Controls Over the General Appealability Statute of Section 14–3–330

Charlotte–Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 387 S.C. 265, 692 S.E.2d 894 (2010) concerned the dismissal of an appeal from an order of the Administrative Law Court (ALC) on the basis it was not immediately appealable under the APA. We observed that “[t]he right of appeal arises from and is controlled by statutory law.” Id. at 266, 692 S.E.2d at 894. We noted that S.C.Code Ann. § 14–3–330(1) (1976)³ is a general appealability statute that permits immediate appeal from an interlocutory order “involving the merits”; however, where a specialized statute regarding appeals is applicable, section 14–3–330 does not govern the right to review. Id.

We observed that S.C.Code Ann. § 1–23–610(A)(1) (Supp.2009) of the APA allows judicial review only from “final decisions” of the ALC. Id. “Therefore, although § 14–3–330 permits appeals from interlocutory orders which involve the merits, that section is inapplicable in cases where a party seeks review of a decision of the ALC because the more specific statute, § 1–23–610, limits review to final decisions of the ALC.” Id. We overruled two cases “[t]o the extent ... [that they] rely on § 14–3–330 to permit the appeal of interlocutory orders of the ALC or an administrative agency....” Id. (emphasis added).⁴

We considered the meaning of a “final decision” and stated, “If there is some further act which must be done by the court prior to a determination of the rights of the parties, the order is interlocutory.” Id. at 267, 692 S.E.2d at 894. “A judgment which determines the applicable law, but leaves open questions of fact, is not a final judgment.” Id. Rather, “[a] final judgment disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or terminates the particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what...