Morgan v. JPS Automotives, 2467

• Decision Date: 08 November 1996
• Docket Number: No. 2467,2467
• Citation: 321 S.C. 2012,467 S.E.2d 457
• Parties: Patricia L. MORGAN, Employee, Appellant, v. JPS AUTOMOTIVES, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier, Respondents.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 457

467 S.E.2d 457

321 S.C. 2012

Patricia L. MORGAN, Employee, Appellant, v. JPS AUTOMOTIVES, Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, Carrier, Respondents.

No. 2467.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Submitted Jan. 9, 1996.

Decided Feb. 20, 1996.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1996.

Certiorari Granted Nov. 8, 1996.

Greg Morton, of Donnan, Morton & Davis, Greenville, for appellant.

Richard B. Kale, Jr., of Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for respondents.

HOWELL, Chief Judge:

In this workers' compensation case, Patricia L. Morgan (Morgan) appeals the Workers' Compensation Commission's grant of her employer's application to stop payment of temporary total disability benefits, and the Single Commissioner's denial of her motion to adjourn the hearing. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Morgan suffered two injuries to her right arm while working for her employer, JPS Automotives (JPS). As a result of these injuries, Morgan developed reflex sympathetic dystrophy with dystonia. In April, 1993, JPS began paying Morgan temporary total disability benefits pursuant to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act. In June, 1993, JPS filed an application to stop payment of temporary disability compensation on the ground Morgan reached maximum medical improvement. The Single Commissioner found Morgan suffered a 100% permanent disability to the right arm, reached maximum medical improvement, and JPS was entitled to stop payment of temporary total disability compensation as of June 3, 1993. The Single Commissioner also denied Morgan's motion to adjourn the hearing, finding the motion was not timely filed and the evidence to be submitted was not yet in existence. The Full Commission affirmed the decision of the Single Commissioner in July, 1994. In November, 1994, the circuit court affirmed the order of the Full Commission.

Morgan argues the Single Commissioner erred in denying Morgan's motion for adjournment. We agree. Under 25A S.C.Code Ann.Regs. 67-611 (1990 & Supp.1995) a claimant represented by an attorney is required to file a Form 58, Pre-hearing Brief with the Commissioner and serve a copy on the opposing party at least ten days before the hearing. On Morgan's Form 58, under the section entitled Unusual Problems, Morgan stated: "[t]he claimant is being evaluated by Dr. William Stewart, a vocational expert. This examination and subsequent report is scheduled shortly following the hearing and Claimant requests that the record be left open for submission of these materials." The Form 58 clearly showed Morgan believed the only issue for adjudication at the hearing was whether she was entitled to continue to receive temporary benefits.

25A S.C.Code Ann.Regs. 67-613(D) (1990) permits the Commissioner to adjourn a hearing to allow a party to procure additional evidence "when the evidence is in existence, identified, and necessary for the decision but unavailable at the hearing." JPS argues because Dr. Stewart had not physically evaluated Morgan, the evidence was not in existence at the time of the hearing. We find the fact that Dr. Stewart had evaluated Morgan's records sufficient to conclude the evidence was in existence at the time of the hearing. JPS also argues Morgan's motion for adjournment was not filed and served in advance, but was made orally at the hearing. We conclude the Form 58 timely notified JPS of Morgan's motion for adjournment. When the claimant notifies the Commissioner and her employer of her request for an adjournment to provide additional proof of disability, as Morgan did in her Form 58, an adjournment causes no prejudice to the employer. The Commissioner should have permitted adjournment in the interest of justice. See Brown v. LaFrance Indus., 286 S.C. 319, 333 S.E.2d 348 (Ct.App.1985) (when the claimant in a workers' compensation case inadvertently omits proof of causation, the case should be reopened and an opportunity should be afforded the claimant to supply such proof in the interest of justice). We therefore find the Commissioner erred in denying Morgan's motion for adjournment.

Morgan next argues the Single Commissioner and Full Commission erred in failing to make specific findings of fact and impliedly rejecting Morgan's contention that she suffered a total disability. We agree. The order of the single commissioner finds Morgan has a 100% loss of use of the right arm. The Hearing Commissioner noted Morgan often had severe pain, the pain affected her ability to sleep, she would need botox injections on...