The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Frances S. Hudson, Deceased Employee, by Kenneth L. Hudson and Keith B. Hudson, Co-Executors of her Estate, as well as Matthew Deese and/or Andrew Deese, Respondents, v. Lancaster Convalescent Center, Employer, and Legion Insurance Company, In Liquidation through the South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, Carrier, Appellants. __________ Opinion No.4705 Heard March 3, 2010 – Filed June 30, 2010 Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled February 4, 2011 Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled April 21, 2011 __________ Appeal From Lancaster County Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge __________ AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART __________ 46
E. Ros Huff, Jr., of Irmo, for Appellants Lancaster Convalescent Center and Legion Insurance Company, and Mark D. Cauthen and Peter P. Leventis, both of Columbia, for Appellant South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association. Andrew Nathan Safran and Pope D. Johnson, both of Columbia, and Ann McCrowey Mickle, of Rock Hill, for Respondents. LOCKEMY, J.: In this workers' compensation action, Lancaster Convalescent Center (Employer) and Legion Insurance Company (Legion), in liquidation through South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (the Guaranty Association), appeal the circuit court's decision affirming the decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) to award Frances S. Hudson certain workers' compensation benefits. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS This appeal comes to this court after several workers' compensation hearings. In 1997, Frances S. Hudson sustained an injury to her left leg while in the course and scope of her employment with Employer for which she received workers' compensation benefits. Later, in an order dated October 3, 2001, the single commissioner found Hudson permanently and totally disabled based on a combination of injuries stemming from her original 1997 work-related injury. Due to the combination of her injuries, the single commissioner found Hudson unable to perform any kind of work. Thereafter, Hudson requested a lump-sum payment of her disability award, but Employer and Legion objected. After a hearing on the matter, the single commissioner found it was in Hudson's best interests to receive the 47
Page 1 and 2: The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
Page 5 and 6: The South Carolina Court of Appeals
Page 7 and 8: PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson
Page 9 and 10: PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME CO
Page 11 and 12: 4711-Jennings v. Jennings Pending 4
Page 13 and 14: 2010-UP-303-State v. N. Patrick 201
Page 15 and 16: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 17 and 18: determination by the Department as
Page 19 and 20: 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 § 1
Page 21 and 22: space to physician's practices and
Page 23 and 24: In sum, DHEC's policy shift concern
Page 25 and 26: using Beaver's appraisal was "contr
Page 27 and 28: suspension. 1 We accept the agreeme
Page 31 and 32: educated and financially successful
Page 33 and 34: civility, not only in court, but al
Page 35 and 36: he runs afoul of the penalties of l
Page 39 and 40: (B) shall execute and file with the
Page 45: Columbia, South Carolina April 21,
Page 49 and 50: aised the issue on behalf of Matthe
Page 51 and 52: II. Beneficiaries/Next of Kin Depen
Page 53 and 54: insolvent insurer and (a) the claim
Page 55 and 56: Judge Goode found, the imposition o
Page 57 and 58: John T. Crawford, Jr., and Keven Ke
Page 59 and 60: STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action at
Page 61 and 62: any other person having a current o
Page 63 and 64: Accordingly, Appellants maintain th
Page 65 and 66: Specifically, Appellants argue the
Page 67 and 68: only be granted when absolutely nec
Page 69 and 70: abandoned issue when he failed to p
Page 71 and 72: the jury. Furthermore, the amount a
Page 75 and 76: Poovey approached the scene, he obs
Page 77 and 78: easonable suspicion to stop Frazier
Page 79 and 80: urglary and the show-up, Sanders's
Page 81 and 82: where an incident is so grievous th
Page 83 and 84: Andrew F. Lindemann and J. Edward B
Page 85 and 86: In any action . . . to recover dama
Page 87 and 88: epose because the basis for a contr
Page 91 and 92: force trauma to the chest in connec
Page 93 and 94: ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Did the circu
Page 95 and 96: to be a narcotic drug, one case fro
Page 97 and 98:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 99 and 100:
Medicaid Services. 3 The South Caro
Page 101 and 102:
Peter appealed to the ALC. The ALC
Page 103 and 104:
necessitate a waiver-qualifying ind
Page 105 and 106:
of Columbia; Solicitor Edgar Lewis
Page 107 and 108:
transfer request." State v. Pittman
Page 109 and 110:
In this case, we find the family co
Page 111 and 112:
CONCLUSION We find the family court
Page 113 and 114:
FEW, C.J.: In Lawrence Burgess's ap
Page 115 and 116:
[T]he parties . . . consent and agr
Page 117 and 118:
municipality or a town from authori
Page 119 and 120:
court need not address remaining is
Page 121 and 122:
Burgess's counsel objected to the c
Page 123 and 124:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 125 and 126:
of 33%." Dr. Lehman also found Laws
Page 127 and 128:
the decision is affected by an erro
Page 129 and 130:
Reg. 67-707(C). known to the moving
show all

The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?