Could South Carolina’s Workers’ Compensation Commission charge a filing fee for hearings, settlements, and motions?

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General concluded that the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission could charge a filing fee under a proviso in the fiscal 2010–11 appropriations bill. The proviso authorized the Commission to retain and spend revenue from a $25 fee for each requested hearing, settlement, or motion. It required the fee to be waived for an individual found indigent.

The opinion's authority was the language of that particular budget proviso. It read the power to retain fee revenue as showing legislative intent to permit charging the fee in the first place.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2010. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What filing events did the 2010 opinion cover?
A: It identified requested hearings, settlements, and motions under Proviso 58.3 of the fiscal 2010–11 appropriations bill.

Q: Did the proviso allow a fee to be charged to an indigent filer? A: No. The quoted proviso required waiver when the individual was determined to be indigent.

Q: Why did the Attorney General find authority to charge a fee? A: It read the proviso's authorization to retain and expend revenue from the stated filing fee as authorizing the Commission to collect that fee.

Background and statutory framework

The Commission's director asked whether the agency could charge a filing fee. The opinion relied on Proviso 58.3 in House Bill 4657 for fiscal year 2010–11 and treated an appropriations proviso as having statutory effect once enacted. Its conclusion was tied to the proviso's stated fee and indigency exception.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted Proviso 58.3 of H. 4657 in the original text below. It also discussed S.C. Code § 11-9-10 on appropriations.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-30-2010-3/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cannon-g-os-9106-8-30-10-workers-compensation-commissions-authority-to-charge-filing-fee.pdf

Original opinion text

H ENRY McMASTER
ATIORNEY GENERAL

August 30, 2010

Gary Cannon, Executive Director
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
PO Box 1715
Columbia, SC 29202
Dear Mr. Cannon:
We received your letter requesting an opinion of this Office concerning the South Carolina's Workers' Compensation Commission's authority to charge a filing fee. This opinion will address prior opinions of this Office, relevant statutes, provisos and caselaw to determine whether the Workers ' Compensation Commission has authority to charge a filing fee.

Law/Analysis
The General Assembly ratified House Bill 4657 which includes Proviso 58.3 for the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. Proviso 58.3 states as follows: The Workers' Compensation Commission is authorized to retain and expend all revenues received as a result of a $25.00 filing fee for each requested hearing, settlement_, or motion. If it is determined that the individual is indigent, this filing fee must be waived. Proviso 58.3 (H. 4657, S.C. General Assembly, 118th Session, 2009-2010). It is well established that provisos carry statutory authority and must be adhered to. If the General Assembly passes a proviso, there will be statutory authority to take whatever action is indicated in the proviso unless the Governor vetoes the proviso or there is some other indication to the contrary. See, Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., September 4, 2003; July 19, 2000; May 1, 2000; November 2, 1993. In an opinion of this Office dated August 12, 1975, we stated as follows:

A proviso inserted in an appropriations bill ... must be complied with for the release of the appropriated money. Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., August 12, 1975. See also, S.C. Code§ 11-9-10 (''It shall be unlawful for any moneys to be expended for any purpose or activity except that for which it is specifically

RBMBER'.r c. DENNIS Bua.DINO • Pos-r OFAr:H Box 11549 • CoUJMBIA. SC 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Mr. Cannon
Page2
August 30, 2010

appropriated, and no transfer from one appropriation account to another shall be made unless such transfer be provided for in the annual appropriations act."). In interpreting any legislative act, the primary objective is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent if at all possible. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 476 S.E.2d 690 ( 1996). "If a statute's language is plain, unambiguous, and conveys a clear meaning, then the rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and a court has no right to impose another meaning. The words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to subtle or forced construction which limit or expand the statute's operation." Strickland v. Strickland, 372 S.C. 76, 88-89, 650 S.E.2d 465, 472 (2007) (citations omitted). Provisos must be strictly construed. Barringer v. Dinkier Hotels Co., 61 F.2d 82, 84 (4th Cir. 1932); 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction,§ 47.08. See, Op. S.C. Atty. Gen., March 15, 1993. Based on the foregoing principles of statutory construction, it is our opinion that the explicit language that the "Workers' Compensation Commission is authorized to retain and expend all revenues received as a result of a $25 .00 filing fee for each requested hearing, settlement, or motion" indicates that the Workers' Compensation Commission may charge a filing fee. Conclusion It is the opinion of this Office that a court would likely find that the intent of the General Assembly is made clear in Proviso 58.3, and that the Workers' Compensation Commission has the authority to charge a $25.00 filing fee for all hearings, settlements, and motions unless the individual is indigent. 1

Sincerely,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General

J;(~lkA_/ ~
By:

Leigha Blackwell
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~D-.~
Robert D. Cook
Deputy Attorney General

1

Proviso 58.3 (H. 4657, S.C. General Assembly, 118th Session, 2009-2010).