Greenville Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Injuries

Construction Worker Crushed To Death In Accident

Chrissie Cole — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:19:00 GMT

A construction worker was killed today when he became crushed beneath the tractor-trailer that he was trying to free from the mud.

The accident happened just after 8:00 a.m. at Frederick Douglass Avenue, according to Glenn Rhoad, Berkeley County Coroner.

The Coroner declined to identify the man pending family notification. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The man was trying to help free a 18-wheeler hauling concrete pipes. The vehicle became stuck on the dirt road and the man was behind it, trying to hook a chain from the trailer to a bulldozer.

The driver of the 18-wheeler didn’t see him behind the trailer and put the truck in reverse, running him over, said Rhoad.

There will be no charges, the death is considered accidental.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Chrissie Cole

No Economic Incentive For Worker Safety?

Ric Davis — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:28:00 GMT

Economic incentives for worker safety are disappearing across the country. "Tort Reform" and workers compensation law reforms will continue to lead to devasting injuries as corporate america makes decisons soley based on economic reasons. Cases like the scaffolding deaths in Arkansas will fill our newspapers as the remanants of tort reform spread.

In Arkansas, two construction companies and a project supervisor were to blame for a scaffolding collapse that killed two men working above the Arkansas River. A lawsuit was filed Monday. According to the lawsuit, filed by the families of the men, Oscar Renda Contracting Inc., SAC Manufacturing Inc and foreman Charles Jackson knew that the work site was dangerous and failed to ensure that scaffolding was safe. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and medical, funeral and burial expenses. Schulyer Dixon, Houston Chronicle 04/21/2008.

Read more about this case: Houston Chronicle

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Safety of Construction Sites

Ric Davis — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:00 GMT

A New York building, under construction, where seven workers died after a crane collapse, violated multiple zoning regulations. According to local residents and politicians, the city buildings department ignored questions about the building’s height long after it had already granted permits for the site. Complaints about the departments conduct are not limited to one building. So far this year, 13 fatalities have occurred at construction sites in the city, up from 12 in 2007. Charles V. Bagli and Diane Cardwell, The New York Times 04/22/2008.

Once again, safety was a secondary consideration.

Read the Article: The New York Times

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Maximum Weekly Workers Compensation Rate In South Carolina

Ric Davis — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:20:00 GMT

The South Carolina Employment Security Commission has certified that the average weekly wage in South Carolina for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 was $661.29. Accordingly, for accidents that occur on or after January 1, 2008, the maximum weekly compensation rate, which according to Section 42-9-10 is to be “no more than the average weekly wage in this State for the preceding fiscal year,” shall be $661.29.

This raises the maximum weekly compensation rate by $15.35, 2.4% greater than the 2007 rate of $645.94. An individual’s compensation rate equals 66⅔% of an individual’s average weekly wage, not to exceed the average weekly wage in South Carolina as determined by the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. In terms of total disability for 500 weeks, the maximum compensation award for 2008 will be $330,645. Generally, an individual must have earned $51,555 annually ($991.44 weekly) or more during the four quarters immediately preceding the quarter in which an accident occurs in order to be paid at the maximum compensation rate.

Compensations Rates Since 1978

1/1/08	$661.29
1/1/07	$645.94
1/1/06	$616.48
1/1/05	$592.56
1/1/04	$577.73
1/1/03	$563.55
1/1/02	$549.42
1/1/01	$532.77
1/1/00	$507.34
1/1/99	$483.47
1/1/98	$465.18
1/1/97	$450.62
1/1/96	$437.79
1/1/95	$422.48
1/1/94	$410.26
1/1/93	$393.06
1/1/92	$379.82
1/1/91	$364.37
1/1/90	$350.19
1/1/89	$334.87
1/1/88	$319.20
1/1/87	$308.24
1/1/86	$294.95
1/1/85	$287.02
1/1/84	$268.99
1/1/83	$254.38
1/1/82	$235.00
1/1/81	$216.00
1/1/80	$197.00
1/1/79	$185.00

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

How to report an on-the-job injury?

Ric Davis — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:31:04 GMT

Report all injuries at work to your employer immediately and request medical treatment, if needed. If you neglect to report the injury within 90 days of the accident you may lose your benefits.

Although you must report the injury within 90 days, you have up to two years to file a claim for benefits. If a worker dies because of work-related injuries, the worker’s dependents, or parents if there are no dependents, must file a claim within two years of the death to claim benefits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

In-home nurses get workers compensation benefits for car accidents

Ric Davis — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:56:01 GMT

Two nurses could collect workers compensation benefits for separate auto accidents that happened while they were driving to see housebound patients -- even though they weren't paid mileage for the trips, the Workers' Compensation Commission has ruled.

Commissioners said the claims were compensable despite the going and coming rule because car travel was a necessary, essential and integral part of the claimants' jobs as home health nurses. The accident in Manley v. Maxim Healthcare Services (South Carolina Lawyers Weekly No. 020-005-07, 12 pages) occurred while the claimant was traveling from the home of one patient to the next.

The nurse in the second case, Williams v. Prestige Home Support and Home Health Care (South Carolina Lawyers Weekly No. 020-004-07, 34 pages), was injured when her car collided with stray cattle while she was driving to her first appointment of the day.

Appellate panels in both matters adopted orders from the single commissioners who heard the cases and awarded benefits. The decisions are significant because they show the commission's willingness to find accidents to be within the scope of employment, even where claimants were arguably on their way to work and weren't expressly compensated for travel time.

Greenville lawyer Richard V. "Ric" Davis, who represented the Manley claimant, said the availability of comp for home health nurses injured in transit remains an unsettled question at the appellate level. "I'm surprised that there hasn't been a decision at the Supreme Court on this issue," Davis told Lawyers Weekly.

He said the commission's rulings have acknowledged that benefits are appropriate in such cases because driving is implicit in the nurses' job description, similar to that of a traveling salesman.

"The essential element that makes the cases compensable -- which the commission has recognized even in a very conservative environment -- is that travel is an essential element of this job. You can't ignore that factor because that's part of the risk of the employment. This job can't be performed unless the employee travels to the homes," Davis said.

The claimant's attorney in Williams, Stephen J. Wukela of Florence, agreed.

"I think what the commissioner properly found was that accidents with traveling nurses -- as with traveling salesmen, truck drivers and all types of traveling employees where the work creates the necessity for the travel -- arise out of the course of employment," Wukela said.

He said the employer has appealed his client's case to Circuit Court.

The two comp awards stand in apparent opposition to appellate rulings in North Carolina, whose comp system served as the model for South Carolina's.

The N.C. Industrial Commission has denied claims from home health nurses based on the going and coming rule after a decision from that state's Appeals Court in Hunt v. Tender Loving Care Home Care Agency, 569 S.E.2d 675 (2002).

Manley Case

Deborah Manley was injured in a car wreck on June 9, 2006, while she was driving from the home of one patient to see the next patient on her schedule.

The accident happened when another driver crossed the center line and hit the claimant's car head on. She suffered injuries to her left shoulder, arms, hands and neck. The claimant has not worked since the accident.

Commissioner G. Bryan Lyndon awarded benefits.

"I find as a fact that travel between the homes of two patients, if uninterrupted by a substantial deviation, is deemed to be within the course and scope of the employment," Commissioner Lyndon wrote.

He said that travel was a necessary part of the claimant's employment, even though she was not paid for time spent in transit.

"Once the claimant reported for work at the home of her first patient, she was effectively 'on the clock,' and the fact that she had to travel to another location before she would be paid for additional work time does not remove her from the course and scope of employment," the order states.

Davis, the claimant's lawyer, said a few distinguishing factors made his client's case easier.

"She was traveling between patient A and patient B when the accident happened. Had she been going back to her home from patient A's house, I think the employer's argument would have been stronger, though I still think that the commission would have said this is a case where the transportation is such an integral part of the job that it doesn't fall within the going and coming rule," Davis said.

Williams Case

On Jan. 12, 2006, Pearl C. Williams was driving from her home in Effingham to see her first patient of the day in Mullins, nearly an hour away. On her way, the claimant hit some cows that had wandered onto the highway.

The wreck caused injuries to her neck; her right shoulder, arm, hand, hip, knee and leg; and her left knee. She also suffered psychological problems, including nightmares about cows, according to the single commissioner's order.

Commissioner Andrea Pope Roche rejected the employer's argument that the going and coming rule barred compensation.

"I find that the claimant was a home health care nurse, that the very nature of home health care is to provide mobile nursing assistance, and that her travel to [the patient's] house was a necessary and integral part of the defendant's business and claimant's employment," Commissioner Roche wrote.

She further found that the claimant had received a raise in part to compensate her for traveling longer distances -- even though the employer said she would have gotten a raise regardless.

"Even assuming she was not paid by the employer for her travel, the employer admits specifically that the claimant's work, and indeed the work of all the employer's traveling nurses, created the necessity for travel. Without travel to the home of a patient, there can be no at-home nursing care," the order states.

Since travel was a necessity of the job, her accident was within the course of the claimant's employment, the single commissioner said.

As published in Lawyers Weekly.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to the section on Workers Compensation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Man fired minutes before injury awarded workers' comp benefits

Ric Davis — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:37:02 GMT

The following is a published account of a case handled by Christian and Davis as printed in Lawyers Weekly:

An Upstate construction worker who had been fired for alleged misconduct just minutes before he was run over by a truck was entitled to workers' comp benefits, the Circuit Court has ruled. The accident happened as the claimant was headed for the jobsite's exit gate after he was let go, according to an order recently reported to Lawyers Weekly by his attorney, Richard V. "Ric" Davis of Greenville. In an apparent first-impression decision, Circuit Judge J. Mark Hayes II said that the accident fell within the scope of employment despite the fact the claimant had been fired about 15 minutes prior.

Judge Hayes cited case law that provides for comp coverage where employees have stopped work for the day, but are still within a reasonable window of time and distance from their duties. "The fact that the employee was terminated for misconduct does not change the rule that coverage is provided for a reasonable period of time," he wrote. "The employment status should be treated no differently than the employee who departs work for the day."

The case is Reeves v. McConnell Builders, Inc. and Selective Ins. Co. (South Carolina Lawyers Weekly No. 008-001-07, 8 pages).

The employer's attorney, Garth H. White of Charlotte, N.C., said he would have liked the Appeals Court to have heard the issue, but financial considerations weighed in favor of settling. "If the case had been worth more money, we probably would have taken it up," White told Lawyers Weekly. The settlement was reached while an appeal was pending. He contended that the Workers' Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction. "Our first argument was the fact that there was no employee/employer relationship because that ended when he was fired. No one disputed the circumstances of the termination." Instead, the claimant's sole remedy should have been a tort claim against the owner of the jobsite, something the claimant also has pursued, according to White. "This guy would not have been left out in the cold because he has the remedy of tort even if he couldn't get workers' comp," he said.

Background

The claimant, Christopher Reeves, was fired from his job as a laborer with McConnell Builders on Oct. 1, 2004. McConnell accused the claimant of misconduct at the recycling plant where he was working. The claimant walked to his work truck to gather his belongings and headed toward the gate in the fence around the property. Before he reached the exit, he was run over by a truck. The claimant suffered internal bruising, a fractured left ankle, injuries to his left leg, a contusion on his chest and various abrasions. He claimed he was unable to work again until Jan. 31, 2005. He sought benefits for the intervening time.

Ruling

In an order dated Dec. 2, 2006, Judge Hayes upheld an award of benefits from the single commissioner, which had been affirmed by the commission's appellate panel. "The South Carolina Supreme Court has consistently held that the Workers' Compensation Act provides coverage for an injury, under certain circumstances, beyond the strict confines of the time clock or specific job functions," the order states.

Judge Hayes cited the case of Williams v. S.C. State Hospital, 245 S.C. 377 (1965), which held that an employee was entitled to comp benefits for an accident that happened within a reasonable time after the workday had ended.
The court also cited Holston v. Allied Corp., 30 S.C. 103 (Ct. App. 1989), which held that the going-and-coming rule did not apply where an injury occurred on premises controlled by the employer.

White said he thought that case law didn't support coverage for the claimant in Reeves. "The commission and the Circuit Court relied on that, but I thought it was clearly factually distinguishable. Here, it was not actually the employer's premises, so the employer didn't have any way to maintain and control it," he said.

White also said the fact the claimant's employment relationship was severed permanently made the case different.

Judge Hayes disagreed and said the logic of the case law applied to Reeves, even though the claimant had been fired for misconduct. "To accept the argument of the defendants, this court would have to find, as a matter of law, that an employee who quits, is terminated, or simply retires, loses status under the act the very moment that the contractual relationship ends," he wrote.

The next issue was whether the claimant's injury happened within a reasonable time after his firing. The court said it did.

"There is no evidence of delay or loitering on the premises. It would be unreasonable to think that an employee, who had been accused of stealing, would be allowed to loiter or remain on the premises for any significant period of time under the circumstances," the order states.

For more information on this subject matter, please refer to our section on Worksite Injury and Workers Compensation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ric Davis

Workers Compensation Deform in South Carolina

Josh Christian — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:44:12 GMT

In an article in the Greenville newspaper yesterday the Governor and wealthy business men across the state gathered to sign the new South Carolina Workers Compensation Deform bill. Instead of trying to protect the hard working men and women who form the core values of our country, Governor Sanford has decided to protect profits and businesses. Injured workers will suffer across the state as a result of this bill.

The interesting thing about the article on the front page of the newspaper is that the injured worker and those who have been severely debilitated because of a work injury are missing from the picture. The Governor who is in the hip pockets of the big business and insurance company does not want to stop there as he pointed out:

While the bill also will "open the business playing field and consequently the job opportunities in the state," the workers' compensation system still needs further reform

Although who could blame Gov. Sanford as he has never held a real job in his life and would not know what it means to be a skilled worker injured on the job, he just wants to take rights away from the injured worker.

For more information on this subject, please refer to our section on Workplace injuries and Discrimination.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Josh Christian

Reform Needed to Improve Workers' Compensation Benefits

Harold Christian — Thu, 10 May 2007 11:17:18 GMT

While Governor Mark Sanford and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce continue to lobby for what they claim to be reform of the workers' compensation system, their plans would only benefit employers and the large insurance companies in our state. Reform is needed to provide more and fairer benefits for injured workers.

Recently Governor Mark Sanford has toured the state of South Carolina contending that workers' compensation premiums are crippling business development. On the contrary, insurance companies may be choking employers and small businesses but benefits received by workers are meager by comparison to the serious injuries they suffer. Governor Sanford suggests that the right to recover benefits for repetitive injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome should be eliminated. The Christian & Davis law firm takes the position that long ago workers gave up the right to any lawsuits against the employers for unsafe workplaces causing injuries, and instead only receive the limited benefits of workers' compensation. Therefore, any injury or harm caused as a result of the workplace should be compensable and covered under the Workers' Compensation Act. There is no reasonable rationale for eliminating repetitive injuries caused to employees by their work.

Governor Sanford further contends that workers are getting rich off of the workers' compensation system. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is impossible for an injured worker to become rich off of our workers' compensation system.

Benefits for a worker who is permanently and totally disabled from any gainful employment are limited to 500 weeks times their compensation rate, with one week of compensation equaling two-thirds of the employee's previous salary. Therefore, in essence, a person who is disabled for a lifetime is capped at approximately 9-1/2 years of a percent of their earnings. In addition to that, he or she receives nothing for pain and suffering or loss of enjoyment of his or her life. Workers' Compensation simply provides a partial replacement of his or her wage earning capacity. In addition, there is no provision in South Carolina law for escalation of benefits based upon cost-of-living increases.

While injured workers in South Carolina have to turn to public benefits to supplement their workers' compensation, insurance companies continue to make huge profits. The businesses of South Carolina and our politicians such as Governor Sanford should be outraged with the insurance companies and not spending their time and energy to reduce the minimal compensation injured and disabled workers receive.

Governor Sanford has also requested that arbitrary caps be placed on attorneys' fees. He has suggested caps or limits so low that it would eliminate lawyers from practically being able to represent injured workers. His real goal is to eliminate legal representation for injured workers while continuing to allow the insurance carrier and/or the employer to have legal representation, under the guise of restricting attorneys' fees to protect the injured worker. In reality, these politicians and lobbyists desire to make it an unlevel playing field with all of the benefit flowing to the insurance companies.

Christian & Davis represents people with serious personal injuries, work-related injuries, and victims of medical and nursing home negligence and abuse. We encourage you to be politically active and to contact your representative to express the desire that injured workers receive fair protection. The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission presently fairly and adequately handles the judicial and administrative affairs for the workers' compensation claims in South Carolina and should not be further hampered by unnecessary restrictions and limitations on their ability to make decisions concerning the welfare of injured workers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Harold Christian

South Carolina Workers Compensation Reform

Josh Christian — Tue, 08 May 2007 16:29:07 GMT

Unfortunately, for the worker, the state Workers Compensation reform bill has now been passed from the labor committee to the house floor. The proposed bill would significantly limit an injured persons right to recover at the expense of large insurance companies growing profits.

The proposed bill will limit what an injured worker can recover in an already limited system. The present workers compensation system is very limited as a injured worker is only capable of recovering medical bills, time missed from work, and any permanent impairment. The current system is very limited, however, Governor Sanford and those who are in the pocket of the insurance companies now seek to limit an injured persons recovery and make workers compensation claims more difficult.

Everyone in the state of South Carolina should contact their local state representative and ask them to vote against the proposed changes and to ask them to support the workers in our great state not the insurance companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Josh Christian