Nicholson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

• Citation: 769 S.E.2d 1,411 S.C. 381
• Decision Date: 14 January 2015
• Docket Number: No. 27478.,27478.
• Parties: Carolyn M. NICHOLSON, Claimant, Petitioner, v. S.C. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier, Defendants, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2014–000329.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

411 S.C. 381

769 S.E.2d 1

Carolyn M. NICHOLSON, Claimant, Petitioner

v.S.C. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier, Defendants, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014–000329.

No. 27478.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 24, 2014.

Decided Jan. 14, 2015.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 2015.

Kathryn Williams, of Kathryn Williams, PA, of Greenville, for Petitioner.

L. Brenn Watson and Zachary M. Smith, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents.

Opinion

Justice HEARN.

The question in this case is whether a woman who sustains a non-idiopathic fall at her place of employment while performing her job is entitled to receive workers' compensation. Despite how straightforward this issue appears to be, both the single commissioner and the court of appeals found Carolyn Nicholson, who fell while walking down the hallway on her way to a meeting, was not entitled to recover because her fall could have occurred anywhere. We reverse.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Nicholson, a supervisor in the investigations area of child protective services for the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS), was on her way to a meeting when her foot caught on the hall carpet and she fell. She received treatment for pain to her neck, left shoulder, and left side connected with her fall. Nicholson's claim for workers' compensation was denied by the single commissioner because she failed to prove a causal connection between her fall and employment. The commissioner held there was nothing specific to the floor at DSS which contributed to Nicholson's fall and that she could have fallen anywhere.

A split panel of the commission reversed the single commissioner, with two members holding that Nicholson's fall was not unexplained or idiopathic,¹ but rather was a result of the friction on the carpeted area where she was required to work. The panel also noted it was irrelevant that she could have fallen in a similar way in any number of places—she fell at DSS. Accordingly, it held Nicholson's fall arose out of her employment and was therefore compensable.

The court of appeals reversed, holding that although the fall was not unexplained or idiopathic, the carpet was not a hazard or special condition peculiar to her employment that contributed to or caused Nicholson's injuries. Nicholson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 405 S.C. 537, 546–48, 748 S.E.2d 256, 261–62 (Ct.App.2013). Therefore, it concluded her injuries did not arise out of her employment as a matter of law. Id. at 551, 748 S.E.2d at 264. We granted certiorari.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Does an injury arise out of a claimant's employment when she falls while carrying out a task for her employer, but there is no evidence that a specific danger or hazard of the work caused the fall?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal from an appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission, this Court can reverse or modify the decision if it is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record. Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 386 S.C. 534, 540, 689 S.E.2d 615, 618 (2010). “The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation.”

Crisp v. SouthCo., 401 S.C. 627, 641, 738 S.E.2d 835, 842 (2013). In a workers' compensation case, the appellate panel is the ultimate fact-finder. Pratt v. Morris Roofing, Inc., 357 S.C. 619, 622, 594 S.E.2d 272, 273 (2004). However, where there are no disputed facts, the question of whether an accident is compensable is a question of law. Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 201, 641 S.E.2d 869, 872 (2007). Workers' compensation law is to be liberally construed in favor of coverage in order to serve the beneficent purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act; only exceptions and restrictions on coverage are to be strictly construed. James v. Anne's Inc., 390 S.C. 188, 198, 701 S.E.2d 730, 735 (2010).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Nicholson argues the court of appeals erred in finding her injury did not arise out of her employment. Specifically, she contends the court incorrectly focused on whether there was a specific hazard or danger unique to her employment that occasioned her fall. We agree and clarify the framework for this analysis.

For an accidental injury to be compensable, it must “aris[e] out of and in the course of employment.” S.C.Code Ann. § 42–1–160(A) (Supp.2013). An injury arises out of employment if it is proximately caused by the employment. Douglas v. Spartan Mills, Startex Div., 245 S.C. 265, 269, 140 S.E.2d 173, 175 (1965). Therefore “[i]t must be apparent to the rational mind, considering all the circumstances, that a causal relationship exists between the conditions under which the work is performed and the resulting injury.” Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 350, 656 S.E.2d 753, 759 (Ct.App.2007).

It is undisputed Nicholson's injuries occurred within the course of her employment. Thus, the only question is whether they arose out of her employment. In addressing this question, the court of appeals observed that “the causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.” The court reasoned that because carpet was a common danger not peculiar to Nicholson's employment, there was no causal connection between her injuries and her employment. Nicholson, 405 S.C. at 550–51, 748 S.E.2d at 264. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on a larger pronouncement of the rule found in Douglas, 245 S.C. at 269, 140 S.E.2d at 175 :

It (the injury) arises ‘out of’ the employment, when there is apparent to the rational mind upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises ‘out of’ the employment. But it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a hazard to which the workmen would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood. It must be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of master and servant. It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.

Id. at 269, 140 S.E.2d at 175. We do not read this language to compel the result reached by the court of appeals. In our view, it simply establishes that an injury is not compensable absent some causal connection to the workplace. In other words, but for the claimant being at work, the injury would not have occurred. It does not require claimant to prove her injury is entirely unique to her employment, for any other interpretation would seriously undermine the law of workers' compensation. For example, a chef may cut himself with a knife, or a carpenter may fall off a ladder just as easily while at home rather than at work. However, this possibility alone does not remove such an accident from the scope of compensation if the accident occurred at work. Alleging an accident is not unique to employment, without more, is not a viable basis for denying compensation.²

The court of appeals also concluded Nicholson failed to prove a causal connection between her employment and injury because she failed to establish her fall was the result of a hazard or special condition. Specifically, in reversing the appellate panel's award of coverage, the court of appeals held “the only fact connecting Nicholson's fall to her employment is that her injuries occurred while she was working in a carpeted area of DSS's building. The carpet on which Nicholson tripped and fell was not a hazard, a special condition, or peculiar to her employment.” Nicholson, 405 S.C. at 551, 748 S.E.2d at 264. In support of its analysis, the court relied on Bagwell v. Burwell, Inc., 227 S.C. 444, 88 S.E.2d 611 (1955), and Pierre for the proposition that a claimant must demonstrate some danger or hazard caused the fall. Again, we believe the court of appeals erred in finding those cases controlled this factual scenario.

In Bagwell, the claimant suffered an idiopathic fall and died as a result of a subdural hemorrhage

caused when his head struck the concrete floor. Bagwell, 227 S.C. at 449, 88 S.E.2d at 613. The Court observed the well-settled notion that “[a] physical seizure unrelated to the employment is not such an accident as is compensable.” Id. at 450–51, 88 S.E.2d at 614. However, it noted that simply concluding the fall was idiopathic was not the end of the inquiry, and that “[i]f, except for the employment, the fall, though due to a cause not related to the employment, would not have carried the consequences it did, then causal connection is established between injury and employment, and the accidental injury arose out of the employment.” Id. at 453, 88 S.E.2d at 615. Accordingly, the Court proceeded to consider whether a special danger or hazard of claimant's employment contributed to the resultant injury. Id. The Court ultimately held the concrete floor was not a hazard of employment capable of bringing his idiopathic fall within the ambit of coverage. Id. at 454, 88 S.E.2d at 615.

The Bagwell court inquired whether there was a work-related hazard only after concluding the injury was not otherwise compensable. It therefore did not examine whether some hazard caused the fall, but looked at the effect on the resultant injury and whether a hazard increased the severity of...