Note: Beginning in June 2012, opinions will be posted as Adobe PDFs. You can download a free copy of Adobe Reader here.
The summary following each opinion is prepared to offer lawyers and the public a general overview of what a particular opinion decides. The summary is not necessarily a full description of the issues discussed in an opinion.
5-1-2006 - Opinions
This Workers' Compensation appeal involves cross appeals in connection with the Commission's decision to award claimant part of his request for a partial lump sum payment and associated medical costs in a lifetime benefits case.
5-8-2006 - Opinions
The Specters appeal the master-in-equity's order transferring property in partial satisfaction of a judgment. They argue: Respondent did not have standing to maintain the supplemental action against them; Respondents did not take possession of the property prior to the expiration of the judgment; Respondents' attorney did not have authority to bring the action, and the master erred in issuing a restraining order after the judgment had expired. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In this civil action, the court analyzes appellant's breach of contract claim and an alternative claim for quantum meruit recovery.
5-22-2006 - Opinions
W.J. “Joey” Douan appeals from the circuit court’s order granting Charleston County Council’s (the Council) Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, motion to dismiss. The circuit court held Douan cannot recover attorney’s fees under section 15-77-300 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2005) because his action against the Council is moot. We hold the circuit court erred in dismissing Douan’s attorney’s fee claim based on the doctrine of mootness. We reverse and remand.
In this domestic matter, Wife appeals the family court's refusal to award her alimony, decision to find certian property was non-marital, and failure to find certain property was transmuted. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
In this Workers’ Compensation case, Appellants posit a plethora of issues: (1) The Circuit Court, in affirming the Appellate Panel, erred as a matter of law in failing to admit additional and newly discovered evidence; (2) There is no evidence from which reasonable minds could conclude that the Claimant was not at maximum medical improvement and released to return to full duty work at the time of the hearing; (3) The Employer properly terminated temporary total disability benefits; (4) The Circuit Court erred in determining the time period for which penalties should be assessed should be extended beyond the date of the original hearing of the Single Commissioner; and (5) The Circuit Court erred in affirming the Appellate Panel’s order that Donald Johnson, M.D. of Charleston be the authorized treating physician.
In this Workers’ Compensation case, Appellants posit a plethora of issues: (1) Did the Appellate Panel erroneously find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law that Respondent was subjected to unusual and extraordinary conditions of employment in the absence of detailed findings in the order addressing the proximate cause issue and the unusual and extraordinary employment factors; (2) Did the Appellate Panel err in finding as a fact and concluding as a matter of law that Respondent suffered a compensable back injury; (3) Did the Appellate Panel err in finding as a fact and concluding as a matter of law that Respondent suffered a mental or psychological injury as an alleged consequence of continuing and unrelenting occupational stress; (4) Did the Appellate Panel err in finding that the nature of the test audit program was inextricably intertwined with unusual and extraordinary stress; (5) Did the Appellate Panel err in awarding Respondent temporary total disability benefits and medical treatment from March 19, 1999, when the date of the alleged injury is May 27, 1999; (6) Did the Appellate Panel and the Circuit Court err as a matter of law in failing to address the proximate cause of the Respondent’s purported mental injury or disability, when substantial evidence reveals that any purported mental injury results from non-occupational stressors; (7) Did the Appellate Panel and the Circuit Court err in finding and concluding the case is compensable in view of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over this claim; and (8) Did the Appellate Panel and the Circuit Court err in finding that Respondent timely filed a Workers’ Compensation claim and gave timely notice of such to Appellants.
5-30-2006 - Opinions
In this criminal appeal, appellants argue their convictions should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial because they were deprived of their right to use peremptory challenges against certain jurors after the trial judge erroneously found their strikes discriminatory under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
In this tort action, Philip and Barbara Williams appeal from the trial court's order granting summary judgement to James W. Jordan on their claims for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Specifically, the Williamses contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment as to these claims because (1) there is evidence of record to show Dr. Jordan published defamatory and slanderous communications about them; (2) there is evidence of Dr. Jordan's conduct toward the Williamses' children that amounted to intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (3) there is evidence Dr. Jordan's actions caused them emotional strain and disrupted their marital life.
In this appeal from a civil jury verdict, the court analyzes the exclusion of inconsistent statements by a deceased co-defendant as hearsay after admitting other inculpatory statements by the same co-defendant.