Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLC
| Decision Date | 23 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5457,Appellate Case No. 2012-211870 |
| Citation | 796 S.E.2d 145,419 S.C. 87 |
| Parties | Richard A. HARTZELL, Employee, Respondent, v. PALMETTO COLLISION, LLC, Employer, Appellant, and South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employer's Fund, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Kirsten Leslie Barr and Harold Eugene Trask, both of Trask & Howell, LLC, of Mt. Pleasant, and David Alan Westerlund, Jr., of Shelly Leeke Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, all for Appellant.
Kerry W. Koon, of Charleston, for Respondent Richard A. Hartzell.
Lisa C. Glover, of Columbia, for Respondent S.C. Uninsured Employers Fund.
This workers' compensation action comes before this court after our supreme court's decision in Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLC , 415 S.C. 617, 785 S.E.2d 194 (2016), with instructions on remand to address Palmetto Collision, LLC's (Palmetto) remaining assignments of error. Palmetto argues the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Appellate Panel) erred in (1) failing to provide a conclusion of law to satisfy section 42-1-160 of the South Carolina Code (2015), and vaguely finding Richard Hartzell sustained an injury to his back; and (2) awarding Hartzell medical treatment in contravention of subsection 42-15-60(A) of the South Carolina Code (2015). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Hartzell, a fifty-year-old auto body paint technician, worked at Palmetto in early 2009. When cleaning Palmetto's shop on or around February 25, 2009, Hartzell claimed he injured his back while moving tires, rims, and heavy frame equipment. Hartzell testified that he began experiencing lower back pain the afternoon after completing the work and felt very sore in his lower back the following day.
According to Hartzell, he notified Mike Stallings, Palmetto's owner, the day after the alleged injury that he was "pretty sore," and he "must have hurt [himself]." Hartzell testified that Stallings suggested he visit the emergency room if he was having trouble with his back; however, he did not seek medical treatment at that time. Soon thereafter, Palmetto no longer had work for Hartzell, and he left his employment on March 20, 2009. Hartzell noted that, although he and Stallings talked about his back injury during the last weeks of his employment, he never further discussed the injury or sought reimbursement for medical expenses from Palmetto. On April 1, 2009, Hartzell visited a chiropractor, Dr. H. Austin Murray, and reported a job-related lower back injury that occurred on February 25, 2009, on the intake health form.1
On May 10, 2010, Hartzell filed a Form 50, alleging a partial permanent injury to his back while moving an auto frame machine on approximately February 25, 2009. Palmetto denied the claim by raising several defenses. The single commissioner held a hearing on the matter and issued an order, in which she found (1) Palmetto was subject to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act2 (the Act) because it regularly employed four or more employees; (2) Hartzell sustained an injury by accident to his back on or about February 25, 2009; and (3) Hartzell timely reported the injury to Stallings.
Based upon these findings, the single commissioner found Hartzell was entitled to "medical, surgical, and other authorized treatment" and ordered a medical evaluation to determine whether he (1) was at maximum medical improvement (MMI), and (2) required any additional medical treatment or benefits under the Act resulting therefrom. On March 26, 2012, the Appellate Panel affirmed the single commissioner's decision.
Palmetto subsequently appealed to this court, arguing the Appellate Panel erred in (1) determining Palmetto regularly employed four or more employees, (2) finding Hartzell accidentally injured his back and failing to make any conclusion of law thereon, (3) concluding Hartzell timely reported the injury and failing to make any conclusion of law thereon, and (4) awarding Hartzell medical benefits for the injury.
In an opinion issued on October 9, 2013, this court reversed the award of benefits to Hartzell. See Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLC , 406 S.C. 233, 249, 750 S.E.2d 97, 105 (Ct. App. 2013) (per curiam). As a preliminary matter, the court of appeals found Palmetto regularly employed enough employees to come under the jurisdiction of the Act. Id. at 245, 750 S.E.2d at 103. Nevertheless, the court held the Appellate Panel erred in finding that Hartzell provided timely notice of his injury within ninety days to Palmetto because such conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 246–48, 750 S.E.2d at 103–05. Determining that its reversal on the notice issue was dispositive, the court declined to address Palmetto's remaining arguments. Id. at 248, 750 S.E.2d at 105.
Our supreme court granted Hartzell's petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed. See Hartzell , 415 S.C. at 623, 785 S.E.2d at 197. According to the supreme court, Hartzell's testimony in which he stated he told Stallings that he was "pretty sore" and that he "must have hurt [himself]" the previous day was substantial evidence supporting the Appellate Panel's finding that he timely reported his alleged injury. Id. The court then remanded the case to this court with instructions to consider Palmetto's remaining assignments of error. Id. at 624, 785 S.E.2d at 198.
I. Did the Appellate Panel err in failing to provide a conclusion of law with respect to section 42-1-160 and vaguely finding Hartzell sustained an injury?
II. Did the Appellate Panel err in awarding Hartzell medical treatment in contravention of subsection 42-15-60(A)?
The South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act3 (APA) governs the standard of judicial review in workers' compensation cases. Lark v. Bi – Lo, Inc. , 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). Under the APA, this court's review is limited to deciding whether the Appellate Panel's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by an error of law. Hargrove v. Titan Textile Co. , 360 S.C. 276, 289, 599 S.E.2d 604, 610–11 (Ct. App. 2004). "Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence viewed from one side, but such evidence, when the whole record is considered, as would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the [Appellate Panel] reached."
Shealy v. Aiken Cty. , 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000).
Normally, the proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. Transp. Ins. Co. & Flagstar Corp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund , 389 S.C. 422, 427, 699 S.E.2d 687, 689 (2010). However, "[t]he construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent compelling reasons." Dunton v. S.C. Bd. of Exam'rs i n Optometry , 291 S.C. 221, 223, 353 S.E.2d 132, 133 (1987).
Palmetto first argues the Appellate Panel erred in failing to provide a conclusion of law with respect to section 42-1-160 and in vaguely finding Hartzell sustained an injury. We disagree.
To be compensable under the Act, an injury by accident must be one "arising out of and in the course of employment." S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160(A) (2015). "In general, whether an accident arises out of and is in the course and scope of employment is a question of fact for the [Appellate Panel]." Whigham v. Jackson Dawson Commc'ns , 410 S.C. 131, 135, 763 S.E.2d 420, 422 (2014). However, when no material facts are disputed, whether an accident is compensable is a question of law. Id.
In this case, the facts surrounding Hartzell's alleged back injury were clearly disputed by the parties. Therefore, we reject Palmetto's contention that the Appellate Panel erred in failing to include a conclusion of law with respect to subsection 42-1-160(A) because whether Hartzell's alleged injury is compensable was a question of fact. See id. ; see also Rhodes v. Guignard Brick Works , 245 S.C. 304, 307, 140 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1965) ().
We also disagree with Palmetto's argument that the Appellate Panel's order violates the APA because its findings surrounding Hartzell's alleged injury were not sufficiently detailed to allow for meaningful review by this court. The APA requires that S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-350 (2005). Moreover, the Appellate Panel's findings of fact must be sufficiently detailed to enable the appellate court to determine whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the law was properly applied to those findings. Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc. , 357 S.C. 520, 531, 593 S.E.2d 491, 497 (Ct. App. 2004).
In a section addressing the evidence, the Appellate Panel recounted Hartzell's testimony, which it found "more credible on the issue of the fact, and reporting, of the injury." Hartzell testified that, to access his toolbox more easily, he cleaned up Palmetto's shop by moving tires, rims, and a heavy frame machine with steel posts and chains weighing approximately two to three hundred pounds. After he tilted the frame machine back on its wheels and moved it, Hartzell testified he began having pain in his lower back, which later became worse. The Appellate Panel stated in its findings of fact that, "[b]ased upon the medical records and testimony, ... [Hartzell] sustained an injury by accident to his back on or about February 25,...
To continue reading
Request your trial