James v. Anne's Inc., 386 S.C. 326

688 S.E.2d 562 (2010) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · January 25, 2010 · No. No. 26762

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Workers’ Compensation Commission lacked authority to prorate a lump-sum workers’ compensation award over a claimant’s life expectancy without the consent of both parties or an express legislative grant. The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision upholding the Commission’s denial of the requested proration language. Justice Beatty dissented, joined by Justice Waller, concluding that the Commission possessed such authority under its general statutory powers.

Holdings

  1. The Commission lacked authority to prorate James's lump-sum workers' compensation award over her life expectancy without the consent of both parties because no specific legislative grant authorized that procedure.
  2. The fact that life-expectancy proration could affect the calculation of James's Social Security benefits did not independently confer authority on the Commission to order proration.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission had statutory authority to include life-expectancy proration language in a lump-sum award without the consent of both parties.
  2. Whether South Carolina Code section 42-3-180's general grant of authority to determine questions arising under the Workers' Compensation Act authorized the Commission to order such proration.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (12)

  • Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 641 S.E.2d 869 (2007)(followed)
  • Callahan v. Beaufort County School District, 375 S.C. 92, 651 S.E.2d 311 (2007)(followed)
  • Utica-Mohawk Mills v. Orr, 227 S.C. 226, 87 S.E.2d 589 (1955)(distinguished)
  • Pressley v. REA Construction Co., 374 S.C. 283, 648 S.E.2d 301 (Ct. App. 2007)(followed)
  • Cox v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 356 S.C. 468, 589 S.E.2d 766 (Ct. App. 2003)(distinguished)
  • Geathers v. 3V, Inc., 371 S.C. 570, 641 S.E.2d 29 (2007)(followed)
  • Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 437 S.E.2d 64 (1993)(followed)
  • Cross v. Concrete Materials, 236 S.C. 440, 114 S.E.2d 828 (1960)(followed)
  • Olmstead v. Shakespeare, 348 S.C. 436, 559 S.E.2d 370 (Ct. App. 2002)(followed)
  • Case v. Hermitage Cotton Mills, 236 S.C. 515, 115 S.E.2d 57 (1960)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 12.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from South Carolina Supreme Court