Jervey v. Martint Envtl., Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. 4930.,4930.
• Parties: William T. JERVEY, Jr., Employee, Respondent, v. MARTINT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Employer, and General Casualty Insurance Company, Carrier, Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

396 S.C. 442

721 S.E.2d 469

William T. JERVEY, Jr., Employee, Respondent,

v.MARTINT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., Employer, and General Casualty Insurance Company, Carrier, Appellants.

No. 4930.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 31, 2011.Decided Jan. 25, 2012.Rehearing Denied March 30, 2012.

E. Ros Huff, Jr., of Irmo, for Appellants.

Andrew Nathan Safran, of Columbia, for Respondent.

SHORT, J.

Martint Environmental, Inc. (Martint) and General Casualty Insurance Company (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's order vacating in part and affirming in part the order of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission, arguing the court erred in finding: (1) section 42–9–260 of the South Carolina Code is a time bar for raising a defense against compensability; (2) William Jervey could raise both waiver and laches as affirmative defenses; and (3) Jervey suffered from a compensable injury by accident in the course and scope of his employment. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

On January 23, 2006, Jervey was working for Martint when a pipe he was carrying spilled sulfuric acid on his neck, face, and back. The next day, Martint began paying Jervey temporary total disability payments and covering his medical bills.¹ Jervey subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder and began having cervical disc problems. Thereafter, on June 29, 2007, he filed a Form 50 seeking treatment for his cervical problems and designation of Dr. Donald Johnson as his authorized treating physician. Martint filed a Form 51 denying Jervey's requested treatment and that he had sustained a compensable injury. Jervey then filed a Form 58, pre-hearing brief, asserting in pertinent part that Martint's claims are “barred by several legal doctrines, including waiver, estoppel and laches.” Also, Jervey claimed that, despite knowing all the relevant facts, Martint failed to assert its defense for approximately fifteen months, while it paid him weekly compensation and provided him with treatment.

During a pre-hearing conference, the single commissioner took testimony on the issue of compensability, and Jervey's attorney made a motion asserting Martint could not raise any defenses as to the compensability of the claim because Martint accepted the claim and paid Jervey temporary total disability payments beyond the 150–day time limit established in section 42–9–260 of the South Carolina Code. Jervey claimed the only issue Martint could litigate was Jervey's request for treatment for his cervical problems. The commissioner agreed and ruled Martint could not raise a defense on compensability after 150 days. At that time, Martint stipulated “the medical evidence to date indicate [d] a cervical problem that the doctors [said] is causally related.”

In his order, the commissioner reviewed section 42–9–260 of the South Carolina Code, and found the language was explicit:

Section 42–9–260 clearly establishes that an Employer/Carrier: (a) “may start temporary disability payments ... [once] an employee has been out of work due to a work-related injury ... for eight days”; (b) is afforded a 150–day grace period, during which it may conduct “a good faith investigation” to determine whether any “grounds for denial of the claim” exist; and (c) does not “waive ... any grounds for good faith denial,” provided the defense is raised within the prescribed period. This language likewise: (a) limits this grace period to “one hundred fifty days from the date the injury ... is reported”; and (b) invokes a “waiver of any grounds for good faith denial” in the event payments are continued beyond expiration of this grace period.

(Emphasis in original.) The commissioner further found Martint did not attempt to disclaim liability for Jervey's injuries until approximately 450 days after receiving notification of the accident. Moreover, Martint's denial stems from the same allegation that was listed on its January 24, 2006 Form 12–A, in which Martint asserted Jervey was asked not to “touch or dismantle the sulfuric acid system.” Therefore, the commissioner's order provided Martint must: (a) continue to pay Jervey weekly compensation at the rate of $586.11 until such time as this obligation is relieved by further order of the commission or agreement of the parties; (b) accept financial responsibility for all causally-related medical treatments Jervey has received, including those provided by Dr. Johnson; and (c) authorize the additional medical treatments prescribed by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Roger Deal.

Martint subsequently filed a Form 30, appealing the commissioner's order on thirty-four grounds. The Appellate Panel agreed with the commissioner that Jervey was entitled to temporary total disability payments and medical benefits including those provided by Dr. Johnson and Dr. Deal; however, it vacated the commissioner's ruling that the statute of limitations in section 42–9–260 barred Martint's defense, and instead found the doctrines of waiver and laches prohibited Martint's defense. Jervey filed an appeal with the circuit court, arguing the Appellate Panel erred in vacating the commissioner's determination that section 42–9–260 prohibited Martint from asserting its compensability defense. Martint filed its appeal with the circuit court four days later, raising twenty-three points of alleged error, including that the Appellate Panel erred in applying the doctrines of waiver and laches. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued its order affirming the Appellate Panel's order in all respects except for the portion that vacated the single commissioner's legal conclusions concerning the impact of the statute of limitations in section 42–9–260(A). The court also reinstated the award of compensation and medical benefits and dismissed Martint's appeal. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act (APA) establishes the standard for judicial review of decisions by the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission. Fredrick v. Wellman, Inc., 385 S.C. 8, 15–16, 682 S.E.2d 516, 519 (Ct.App.2009); see Lark v. Bi–Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 134–35, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). Under the scope of review established in the APA, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Appellate Panel as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but may reverse or modify the Appellate Panel's decision if the appellant's substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law or is “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.” S.C.Code Ann. § 1–23–380(5) (Supp.2010); see Stone v. Traylor Bros., Inc., 360 S.C. 271, 274, 600 S.E.2d 551, 552 (Ct.App.2004). Our supreme court has defined substantial evidence as evidence that, in viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion that the Appellate Panel reached. Lark, 276 S.C. at 135, 276 S.E.2d at 306. “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984).

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Statute of Limitations

Martint argues the circuit court erred in finding section 42–9–260 of the South Carolina Code is a time bar for raising a defense against compensability. We agree.

The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Blackburn v. Daufuskie Island Fire Dist., 382 S.C. 626, 629, 677 S.E.2d 606, 607 (2009). “In ascertaining legislative intent, ‘a court should not focus on any single section or provision but should consider the language of the statute as a whole.’ ” Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Draine, 389 S.C. 586, 592, 698 S.E.2d 866, 869 (Ct.App.2010) (quoting Mid–State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69, 476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996)). “Unless there is something in the statute requiring a different interpretation, the words used in a statute must be given their ordinary meaning.” S.C. Coastal Conservation League v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Env't Control, 390 S.C. 418, 425, 702 S.E.2d 246, 250 (2010). “When a statute's terms are clear and unambiguous on their face, there is no room for statutory construction and a court must apply the statute according to its literal meaning.” Id. at 425–26, 702 S.E.2d at 250. If two provisions have an irreconcilable conflict, our courts have used the “last legislative expression rule,” which provides “where conflicting provisions exist[ ], the last in point of time or order of arrangement, prevails.” Eagle Container Co. v. Cnty. of Newberry, 379 S.C. 564, 572, 666 S.E.2d 892, 896 (2008) (quoting Ramsey v. Cnty. of McCormick, 306 S.C. 393, 397, 412 S.E.2d 408, 410 (1991)). However, the last legislative expression rule “is purely an arbitrary rule of construction and is to be resorted to only when there is clearly an irreconcilable conflict, and all other means of interpretation have been exhausted.” Id. (quoting Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 54, 26 S.E.2d 22, 24 (1943)).

Section 42–9–260(A) of the South Carolina Code provides “[w]hen an employee has been out of work due to a reported work-related injury or occupational disease for eight days, an employer may start temporary disability payments immediately and may continue these payments for up to one hundred fifty days from the date the injury or disease is reported without waiver of any grounds for good faith denial.” S.C.Code Ann. § 42–9–260(A) (Supp.2010) (emphasis added). Section 42–9–260(B) states that “[o]nce temporary disability payments are commenced, the payments may be terminated or suspended immediately at any time within the one hundred fifty days if: ... (3) a good faith investigation by the employer reveals grounds for denial of...