Justia South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of retired firefighters and police officers who worked for the City of Columbia all elected to have group health insurance provided to them by the city. Prior to July 2009, the City paid all costs to fund the group health insurance for employees and retirees. The retirees received newsletters stating that their health insurance was free and were told by the City's human resources department that retiree health insurance would be at no cost to the retiree. In planning the 2009-2010 budget, the City considered a number of cost-saving measures including shifting part of rising health care costs to participants in the group health plan. The retirees sued under claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the retirees' causes of action. Seven of the thirteen retirees appealed that decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment against the retirees on their contract and estoppels claims to the extent that those claims were based on an employee handbook and benefits booklet each received when they were hired. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against the retirees on their estoppel claims based upon representations made by their supervisors and the City's human resources personnel. View "Bishop v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

Frank Hutson was working as a crane operator for the State Ports Authority when he suffered an injury to his lower back and legs while attempting to remove a container from a ship. He was diagnosed with a disc bulge for which he was treated with steroid injections, physical therapy, and used a back brace. After reaching maximum medical improvement, he filed a Form 50 with the workers' compensation commission for continued benefits alleging permanent and total disability pursuant to Sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-30 South Carolina Code (1976 & Supp. 2011) or, alternatively, a wage loss under Section 42-9-20. He also asked to receive the award in lump sum. Although the Ports Authority and its insurance carrier, the State Accident Fund (collectively, Respondents), admitted the accident and the back injury, they disputed the claims to his legs and argued he should receive only permanent partial disability benefits. They also objected to Hutson's request that his benefits be paid in a lump sum. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on whether speculative testimony by the claimant concerning his possible future work as a restaurateur qualified as substantial evidence to establish he did not sustain a wage loss pursuant to Section 42-9-20 of the South Carolina Code (1976). The Court held it did not, and therefore reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hutson v. SC State Ports Authority" on Justia Law

Milliken & Company sued Brian Morin after he resigned from the company and started a new venture using Milliken's proprietary information. The primary basis of the suit was that Morin breached the confidentiality and invention assignment agreements he signed when he started working for Milliken. A jury found for Milliken, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the narrow issue of whether these agreements are overbroad as a matter of law. Upon review, the Court held that they were not and affirmed as modified. View "Milliken & Company v. Morin" on Justia Law

Cathy Bone filed a workers' compensation claim form (Form 50) dated August 7, 2007 alleging that she injured her back on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 while employed with U.S. Food Service. Her job consisted of power washing and cleaning the insides of truck trailers that transported food. Bone alleged that she hurt her back when she lifted two pallets inside a trailer to clean under them. She did not report the incident immediately because she needed to continue working and thought she would be okay, but thereafter she developed increasing pain. On Tuesday, July 3, 2007, Bone reported the injury to one of her supervisors shortly after she arrived at work. The same morning she reported her injury, Bone had a flat tire on her way to work, and she called in to advise her office of this fact. The employer, U.S. Food Service, and its carrier, Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America denied Bone's claim, disputing that she had injured her back on June 26 and asserting the injury occurred when her tire was changed on July 3. The employer and its carrier appealed the circuit court's order that determined the employee's claim was compensable and remanded the matter to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as interlocutory. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Bone v. U.S. Food Service" on Justia Law

Employee-Respondent Aletha Johnson hurt her back while working for Employer-Appellant Rent-A-Center, Inc. The company contended that the appellate panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission erred by awarding Respondent workers' compensation benefits. The appellate panel found Respondent was disabled and did not constructively refuse light duty work. The Supreme Court found that Respondent qualified as disabled under section 42-1-120 of the South Carolina Code, and affirmed the appellate panel's decision to award benefits. View "Johnson v. Rent-A-Center" on Justia Law

Appellant Brandon Bentley, a deputy sheriff with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department, alleged that he developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD) and depression after he shot and killed a suspect who attempted to assault him. An Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission unanimously found that Appellant failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing a compensable mental injury that arose out of an "unusual or extraordinary condition" of employment for a Spartanburg County deputy sheriff. "Whether the shooting and killing of a suspect by a deputy sheriff while on duty is an extraordinary and unusual employment condition such that mental injuries arising from that incident are compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act" was the issue central to this case. Appellant asked the Supreme Court to reframe the issue, take it out of its particular employment context, and ask "whether killing another human being is "unusual." Upon review, the Court held that Appellant's testimony that he "might be in a situation where he might have to shoot someone," similar testimonies by Sheriff Wright that officers were aware of the possibility that they might be required to shoot and kill, Appellant's training in the use of deadly force, and the department's policy addressing when deadly force should be used constituted substantial evidence supporting the Appellate Panel's conclusion that Appellant's involvement in the shooting was not "extraordinary and unusual," but was a standard and necessary condition of a deputy sheriff's job. View "Bentley v. Spartanburg County" on Justia Law

Appellant Richard Freemantle challenged the legality of a severance agreement between Anderson County and Respondent Joey Preston, a former Anderson County administrator. Respondent was hired as County Administrator in 1998. His contract with the County provided for an initial employment term of three years, with an annual renewal in the absence of written notice not to renew the contract. The November 2008 election changed the "balance of power" on the Anderson County Council. One of the final acts of the outgoing Council was to execute a severance agreement for Respondent that provided him over one million dollars in benefits which was "well in excess of that provided in his employment contract." The severance agreement also included a release provision stating that the County would never seek legal redress against Respondent for any claims relating to his employment with the County. Appellant filed a complaint against Respondents on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated seeking monetary relief and various declaratory judgments. Specifically, Appellant alleged that Council's vote approving the severance agreement was invalid. In addition, Appellant contended the successor Anderson County Council was not bound by the severance agreement. Relief was sought pursuant to various causes of action, including covin and collusion, breach of fiduciary duties, illegal gift of county funds, misfeasance, malfeasance, conspiracy, violations of public policy, and violations of FOIA, The trial court dismissed the action finding that Appellant's status as a taxpayer did not confer standing to challenge the severance agreement. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court in most respects concerning Appellant's lack of standing. However, the Court disagreed with the trial court "only insofar as the FOIA claim is concerned, for traditional standing principles do not apply under FOIA because the legislature has conferred standing on any citizen to enforce the Act's provisions." Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Freemantle v. Preston" on Justia Law

Appellants, who are current and former certified educators employed by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) in the Palmetto Unified School District (PUSD), collectively appealed the Administrative Law Court's (ALC's) order that affirmed the State Employee Grievance Committee's decision denying their grievances regarding the SCDC's Reduction-in-Force (RIF) implemented in 2003. On appeal, Appellants contended the ALC erred in failing to enforce: (1) the plain language of the RIF policy; (2) the controlling legislation applicable to the PUSD and the RIF policy; (3) Appellants' constitutional rights with respect to employment; and (4) Appellants' rights as "covered employees" with respect to the RIF policy. Based on these alleged errors, Appellants asserted they were entitled to reinstatement to employment as well as back pay and benefits. Because the RIF was deemed "procedurally correct," the Supreme Court concluded the ALC correctly affirmed the Committee's decision regarding the inclusion of the PUSD in the RIF. However the Court concluded that the SCDC violated statutory law in precluding Appellants from exercising their priority right to recall as to the positions vacated by retirees. Because the "Retirement Opportunity" offered by the SCDC required a fifteen-day break in service before rehiring, the Court found that "window" constituted a vacancy for which Appellants should have been offered the opportunity for employment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded this case to the Committee to determine the appropriate relief. View "Bell v. SCDC" on Justia Law

Appellants Phillip Grimsley and Roger Mowers were retired and later rehired employees of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). As employees, they were members of the Police Officers Retirement System. As part of the rehire process, SLED required Appellants to sign a form which provided that they would take a pay cut in the amount it would cost SLED to pay "the employer portion" of retirement. According to their suit, Appellants claimed that provision was contrary to state law, which assigned the responsibility for the employer portion of the retirement to the employer. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Appellants brought suit against SLED and the State, seeking a declaratory judgment and asserting causes of action for a violation of S.C. Code Ann. section 9-11-90 and for unlawful takings. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the South Carolina Retirement Contribution Procedures Act (Retirement Act), which Appellants challenged on appeal to the Supreme Court. Appellants additionally appealed the trial court's alternative ruling dismissing their unlawful takings claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with Appellants and found the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint: "Appellants have asserted a cognizable property interest rooted in state law sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. In so finding, [the Court] also [held] the trial court erred in dismissing Appellants' unlawful takings claim." View "Grimsley v. So. Carolina Law Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

Appellant Alexander Michau appealed a ruling by the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Commission) denying his claim for repetitive trauma injuries to his shoulders. Specifically, Appellant challenged the Commission's interpretation and application of section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code. Prior to his injury in 2008, Appellant did not report any work-related problems with his arms to his employer, although he sought outside treatment. The Commission denied Appellant's claim on the grounds that "the greater weight of the medical evidence reflects [Appellant's] upper extremity and shoulder problems are related to pre-existing osteoarthritis and/or rheumatoid arthritis and not caused or aggravated by his employment with Georgetown County." Appellant disputed the admissibility of the Commission's expert doctor's report under South Carolina Code section 42-1-172 because it was not stated "to a reasonable degree of medical certainty." Appellant argued that without this evidence, the remaining competent evidence would support his claim of sustaining a compensable repetitive trauma injury. The Supreme Court concluded after a review of the Commission's record that the doctor was not Appellant's treating doctor, and his employer sought a medical "opinion" to decide the compensability of Appellant's claim. In this instance, the Court concluded that the doctor's testimony was indeed an "opinion" within the meaning of the Code, and therefore inadmissible against Appellant in adjudicating his claim. The Court reversed the Commission's decision to admit the doctor's medical opinion and remanded the case to determine whether the remaining competent evidence supported Appellant's claim of injury. View "Michau v. Georgetown County" on Justia Law