Lester v. WORKERS'COMPENSATION COM'N, No. 24923.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: BURNETT, Justice
• Citation: 514 S.E.2d 751,334 S.C. 557
• Decision Date: 22 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 24923.
• Parties: Ric LESTER d/b/a Fair Play Video, Petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondent.

334 S.C. 557
514 S.E.2d 751

Ric LESTER d/b/a Fair Play Video, Petitioner,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION, Respondent

No. 24923.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard January 6, 1999.

Decided March 22, 1999.

334 S.C. 559

Donald B. Clark and Alexander B. Cash, of Rosen, Goodstein & Hagood, LLC, of Charleston, for petitioner

Janet Godfrey Wilson, of South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, of Columbia, for respondent.

BURNETT, Justice:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of Lester v. South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, 328 S.C. 535, 493 S.E.2d 103 (Ct.App.1997). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

FACTS

Petitioner Ric Lester d/b/a Fair Play Video (Lester) opened a video casino in November 1992. He had no payroll in 1992. In January 1993, Lester began hiring a series of temporary and "rollover" employees. In May 1993, an employee was shot during a robbery of the video casino. In May 1994, Lester acquired workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees.

Lester was directed to appear before Respondent South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) to show cause why he should not be found in violation of

334 S.C. 560

the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act (the Act)¹ for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees from February 1993 until May 26, 1994. Lester argued, pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-360(2) (1985), he was exempt from the requirements of the Act because his payroll was less than $3,000 during 1992

The single commissioner concluded Lester was not exempt under § 42-1-360(2). The Appellate Panel, circuit court, and Court of Appeals affirmed. Lester, supra.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err by construing the minimum payroll exemption provision of § 42-1-360(2) as requiring an employer 1) to have a positive payroll during the previous calendar year and 2) to expect a similarly low payroll during the current calendar year?

DISCUSSION

Section 42-1-360(2) provides as follows:

This Title shall not apply to:

(2) Any person who has regularly employed in service less than four employees in the same business within the State or who had a total annual payroll during the previous calendar year of less than three thousand dollars regardless of the number of persons employed during that period.

(emphasis added).

The Court of Appeals interpreted the minimum payroll provision of § 42-1-360(2) as exempting employers who have an annual payroll of less than $3,000 (but at least some payroll) and who expect to have a similarly low payroll during the current year. Since Lester did not meet the requirements of the minimum payroll exemption because he had no payroll during 1992, the Court of Appeals concluded he was not exempt from providing his employees with workers' compensation in 1993. Lester, supra.

Lester agrees the Court of Appeals correctly held the purpose of the minimum payroll provision is "to avoid administrative

334 S.C. 561

inconvenience to very small employers."² Given this purpose, Lester asserts it is unlikely the General Assembly intended to exempt small employers, but not to exempt even smaller employers who have no payroll

The cardinal rule of statutory construction is for the Court to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 476 S.E.2d 690 (1996). If a statute's language is plain...