Tedder v. Teeter

• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM:
• Docket Number: 2026-UP-176,Appellate Case 2024-001685
• Decision Date: 15 April 2026
• Citation: Tedder v. Teeter, 2026-UP-176, Appellate Case 2024-001685 (S.C. App. Apr 15, 2026)
• Parties: Christine Tedder, Claimant, Appellant, v. Harris Teeter, Employer, and Ace American Insurance Co., Carrier, Respondents.

1

Christine Tedder, Claimant, Appellant, v. Harris Teeter, Employer, and Ace American Insurance Co., Carrier, Respondents.

No. 2026-UP-176

Appellate Case No. 2024-001685

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

April 15, 2026

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted April 1, 2026

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Andrew Nathan Safran, of Andrew N. Safran, LLC, of Columbia; and Robert Clyde Limehouse, III, of Christmas Law Firm, LLC, of Mount Pleasant, both for Appellant.

Johnnie W. Baxley, III, and William H. Lyon, both of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley, P.A., of North Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:

Christine Tedder appeals the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's (Appellate Panel's) order reversing the single commissioner's award of disability compensation and medical benefits arising from her claim against Harris Teeter and Ace American Insurance Co. (collectively, Respondents). On appeal, Tedder argues the Appellate Panel erred in (1) vacating Findings of Fact 4, 6 and 7 because Respondents failed to properly preserve them for review by the Appellate Panel; (2) finding her injury did not arise out of the course and scope of her employment at Harris Teeter, despite Harris Teeter directing her to park in designated areas of the parking lot, which brought that parking area within the implied requirements of her job and scope of her employment; and (3) finding her injury did not arise out of the course and scope of her employment at Harris Teeter despite the parking lot being within the reasonable margin of time and space of her employment. We reverse the order of the Appellate Panel, reinstate the order of the single commissioner, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the Appellate Panel erred in reviewing Findings of Fact 4, 6, and 7 because Respondents failed to raise specific individual exceptions to these findings by the single commissioner, and thus they were not preserved for appellate review. See Hilton v. Flakeboard Am. Ltd., 418 S.C. 245, 249, 791 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2016) ("Only issues raised to the Commission within the application for review of the single commissioner's order are preserved for review."); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-701(A)(3), (A)(3)(a) (2012) (providing that to request Appellate Panel review of a single commissioner's decision, "[t]he grounds for appeal must be set out in detail on the Form 30 in the form of questions presented" and "[e]ach question presented must be concise and concern one finding of fact, conclusion of law, or other proposition the appellant believes is in error"); Holston v. Allied Corp., 300 S.C. 174, 176, 386 S.E.2d 793, 794 (Ct. App. 1989) (noting that to be preserved for appellate review, an issue raised within an exception must be reasonably clear and ruled upon by the single commissioner); id. (finding an employee's broad exception was preserved for the appellate panel's review because the specific exception "was reasonably clear from the employee's arguments and was ruled on by the single [c]ommissioner"); Hilton, 418 S.C. at 250, 791 S.E.2d at 722 ("[The supreme court] has also held that general exceptions, such as 'the commission erred in making an award,' are too ambiguous to fulfill the notice requirements of due process and do not preserve an issue for review.").

2. We hold the Appellate Panel erred in finding Tedder's injuries did not arise out of and in the scope of her employment because Finding of Fact 4-Harris Teeter directed Tedder and other employees to park in designated areas so customers could use the spaces closest to the entrance-and Finding of Fact 7-Respondents' argument that Tedder could have parked anywhere in the parking lot was not persuasive-are the law of the case and established that, although Tedder was injured off Harris Teeter's premises, the parking lot where she was injured was brought within the scope of her employment by Harris Teeter's express requirement that employees park there.^[1] See Lockridge v. Santens of Am., Inc., 344 S.C. 511, 515, 544 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for decisions by the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission."); id. ("Any...