Could an injured worker force a medical care hearing while a South Carolina workers’ compensation appeal was pending?

Plain-English summary

A legislator described a workers' compensation case in which the claimant had appealed part of an award but said the medical care portion was final. He asked whether the Commission had to hear a motion to enforce treatment before the appellate court issued its remittitur. The 2016 AG did not answer that legal question on the merits. It said it could not obtain the Commission's order and therefore could not know why the agency concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The office instead followed its usual policy of giving respectful consideration to the agency charged with administering the workers' compensation statute. It deferred to the Commission's interpretation. That is a narrow disposition: the opinion did not independently hold that every pending appeal suspends enforcement of medical care, or that the claimant's specific order was unenforceable.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2016. 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: Did the AG order the Commission to hold a medical care hearing?
A: No. The office deferred to the Commission rather than directing a hearing.

Q: Did the AG review the order in the claimant's case?
A: No. It said it had been unable to obtain the order and did not know the agency's reasoning.

Q: Did this opinion settle treatment enforcement during every appeal?
A: No. Its conclusion was deference to the Commission on the limited information available.

Background and statutory framework

The request described an ongoing appeal and a medical treatment portion said to be unappealed. The AG quoted the request's account of the appeal rules but did not independently apply them to the missing order. It invoked its practice of deferring to a reasonable interpretation by the agency responsible for enforcement.

Citations and references

• The office wrote: “we have been unable to obtain a copy of the order.”
• Its conclusion was: “we defer to the interpretation by the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission.”
• Source: South Carolina Attorney General, June 21, 2016.

Official title

Regarding a decision of the South Carolina Worker’s Compensation Commission.

Requester

The Honorable Peter M. McCoy, Jr., Member, South Carolina House of Representatives.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/june-21-2016/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/McCoy-P.-OS-1007-FINAL-Opinion-6-21-2016-01037726xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

&o.

*

ol

&

4

y

A

I

ft

o

$£3 I*

*
TT*

$o*

SPE&

£

*v>

^OUTtt

5^°

Alan Wilson
Attorney General

June 21, 2016

The Honorable Peter M. McCoy, Jr., Member
South Carolina House of Representatives
135 King Street
Charleston, SC 29401

Dear Representative McCoy:
We received your opinion request regarding a decision of the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission. Specifically, you state the following: I am requesting a legal inquiry into a scenario that has played out in the district I represent. disabled

in

a

A constituent was seriously and permanently

workplace

injury.

The

South

Carolina

Worker's

Compensation Commission found that he was entitled to ongoing medical care to treat his lifelong complications in an admitted workplace injury claim.

Worker's

Although portions of the order from the South Carolina

Compensation

Commission were

appealed to the

South

Carolina Court of Appeals by the claimant, neither party appealed the medical care portion and thus it became the law of the case.

While the

appeal has been briefed it has not been heard by the Court of Appeals, and the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission believes

they do not have the authority or jurisdiction to hear a motion to enforce medical care until a remitter has been issued in the case. Issue:

The South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission is given exclusive jurisdiction to hold hearings related to work injuries and all

related claims under Title 42 of the SC Code of Laws. Appeals from the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission are vested in the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Appeals can take years and under

current law an appeal does not act as a supersedeas to orders given by the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission.

S.C. Code § 42

17-60 (2013). The award of the commission, as provided in § 42-17-40, if not reviewed in due time, or an award of the commission upon the review, as provided in §42-17-50, is conclusive and binding as to all

questions of fact.

Rembert C. Dennis Building

•

Post Office Box 11549

• Columbia, SC 2921 1-1549

• Telephone 803-734-3970

• Facsimile 803-253-6283

The Honorable Peter M. McCoy, Jr.
Page 2
June 21, 2016

However, either party to the dispute, within thirty days from the date of the award or within thirty days after receipt of notice to be sent by registered mail of the award, but not after, whichever is the longest, may appeal from the decision of the commission to the court of appeals. Notice of appeal must state the grounds of the appeal or the alleged errors of law. In case of an appeal from the decision of the commission on questions of law, the appeal does not operate as a supersedeas and,

after that time, the employer is required to make weekly payments of compensation

and

to

provide

medical

treatment

ordered

by

the

commission involved in the appeal or certification until the questions at issue have been fully determined in accordance with the provisions of this title. Interest accrues on an unpaid portion of the award at the legal rate of interest as established in S.C. Code Ann. § 34-31 -20(B) during the

pendency of an

appeal.

The above code

indicates that the

Commission retains authority to enforce provision of benefits by the defendants to the claimant during the pendency of the appeal. Scenario: An injured worker files a claim for a work injury and is found to be

partially and permanently disabled. This Order from the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission provides for permanent medical care to be provided to the injured worker. The worker appeals errors of law and errors of fact of the decision to the SC Court of Appeals. continuing medical care was NOT appealed by any party.

The

Shortly after

the appeal was taken, the insurance company stopped providing medical

care to the worker. When the injured worker filed for a hearing to have the

medical

care

provided

with

the

South

Carolina

Worker's

Compensation Commission, the Commission determined that they lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing to enforce the provision of medical care to the injured worker that was contained in the order.

As the actions of the commission seem to be contrary to the above mentioned code I would respectfully ask for your office's opinion on the following. Question:

Do injured workers have the right to demand a hearing from the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission to compel medical care, as ordered, after an appeal has been filed but prior to the issuance of a decision/remitter from the court of appeals? (Note: the medical care is not at issue in the appeal, and has been ordered by the commission).

The Honorable Peter M. McCoy, Jr.
Page 3

June 21, 2016

LAW/ANALYSIS:
Our Office does not know why the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission ("Commission")

reached its conclusion because we have been unable to obtain a copy of the order.'

However, we

normally defer to decisions of administrative agencies, as shown by our March 28. 2001 opinion which

states the following:
At the outset, this Office, as a matter of policy, typically defers to the

administrative interpretation of the agency charged with the enforcement of the statute in question. See OPS. ATTY. GEN. Mar. 9. 2000; Nov. 25, 1998. As we have emphasized in earlier opinions "construction of a

statute by the agency charged with executing it is entitled to the most respectful consideration [by the courts] and should not be overruled absent cogent reasons." OP. ATTY. GEN. Oct. 20, 1997(quotimz Logan

v. Leatherman. 290 S.C. 400. 35 1 S.E.2d 146 ( 1986)). If the administrative interpretation is reasonable, courts will defer to that

construction even if it is not the only reasonable one or the one the court would have adopted in the first instance. See OP. ATTY. GEN. Mar. 12, 1997. Op. S.C. Attv. Gen.. March 28, 2001 (2001 WL 564572).

Accordingly, this Office defers to the interpretation by the Commission. CONCLUSION: As this Office typically defers to the interpretation of the administrative agency charged with the enforcement of the statute in question, we defer to the interpretation by the South Carolina Worker's Compensation Commission. Sincerely,

Elinor V. Lister

Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

' ^Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General

I have attempted unsuccessfully to contact you via telephone and email to obtain a copy of the order.

Also, the

Commission was unable to provide us a copy of an order without such identifying information as the name of the claimant, his address, his social security number, and the date of the injury.