Medlin v. Upstate Plaster Service

• Decision Date: 02 December 1997
• Docket Number: No. 24743,24743
• Citation: 329 S.C. 92,495 S.E.2d 447
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Eddie Arthur MEDLIN, Petitioner, v. UPSTATE PLASTER SERVICE and Travelers Insurance Company, Respondents. . Heard

Page 447

495 S.E.2d 447

329 S.C. 92

Eddie Arthur MEDLIN, Petitioner, v. UPSTATE PLASTER SERVICE and Travelers Insurance Company, Respondents.

No. 24743.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 2, 1997.

Decided Jan. 12, 1998.

[329 S.C. 93] Emmette J. Saleeby, Spartanburg, for petitioner.

Harold J. Willson, Jr., Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for respondents.

TOAL, Justice:

In this workers' compensation action, Eddie Medlin has petitioned for a writ of certiorari, contesting the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the denial of compensation for an injury that occurred while Medlin was en route from a work site. We reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 1994, Medlin was employed to install stucco sidings on buildings. His employer Upstate Plaster Service ("Employer") is solely owned by Keith Garris. Employer maintains an office and warehouse in Enoree, South Carolina, but nearly all of its work is done on job sites outside of Enoree.

Medlin testified that before he had started work with Employer, he had told Garris that he did not have a driver's license. Garris told Medlin that if he could make it to Employer's office, Employer would provide transportation from there. Either Medlin's On March 25, 1994, Medlin was scheduled to work in Rutherfordton, North Carolina, which was an hour away from Employer's office. On that day, Co-worker was having trouble with his vehicle, so Garris lent him his personal truck so that Co-worker and Medlin could travel to Rutherfordton. While returning from Rutherfordton in the truck, Co-worker and Medlin were involved in an automobile accident. Medlin, who was riding as the passenger in the truck, was injured.

                co-worker Frankie Bailey ("Co-worker") or Garris himself would then drive Medlin to the work sites.  Garris testified that employees were responsible for getting themselves to work;  however, Medlin could not provide his own transportation, so "We had to furnish him a ride."   Garris stated that one of the men would take Medlin to the job sites
                

In May 1994, Medlin filed for workers' compensation for the injuries he sustained as a result of the automobile accident. Employer denied that Medlin had had an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The matter was heard by a single commissioner who concluded that Medlin did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Employer. The full commission unanimously affirmed the single commissioner's findings of fact and law. This decision was affirmed by the circuit court. The matter was appealed again and heard by the Court of Appeals, which, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the circuit court. Medlin v. Upstate Plaster Serv., Op. No. 96-UP-293 (S.C.Ct.App. filed Sept. 12, 1996). Medlin has petitioned for a writ of certiorari, contesting the decision of the Court of Appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The findings of an administrative agency are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence. Kearse v. State Health & Human Servs. Fin. Comm'n, 318 S.C. 198, 456 S.E.2d 892 (1995). A court may not substitute its judgment for that of an agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact unless the agency's findings are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. Grayson v. Carter Rhoad Furniture, 317 S.C. 306, 454 S.E.2d 320 (1995). Substantial evidence is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached. Gibson v. Florence Country Club, 282 S.C. 384, 318 S.E.2d 365 (1984).

As a general rule, an employee going to or coming from the place where his work is to be performed is not engaged in performing any service growing out of and incidental to his employment, and, therefore, an injury sustained by accident at such time does not arise out of and in the course of his employment. McDaniel v. Bus Terminal Restaurant Management Corp., 271 S.C. 299, 247 S.E.2d 321 (1978). However, South Carolina has recognized a number of exceptions to this rule. Among these are:

(1) Where, in going to and returning from work, the means of transportation is provided by the employer, or the time that is consumed is paid for or included in the wages;

(2) Where the employee, on his way to or from his work, is still charged with some duty or task in connection with his employment;

(3) The way used is inherently...