Case Brief:
Procedural History:
Procedural History: Isaac D. Brailey, the claimant, filed for workers’ compensation benefits against Michel-in North America, Inc. The South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission denied Brailey’s claim on four grounds. (1) Michelin proved the “fraud in the application” defense under Cooper v. McDevitt & Street Co. (2) Brailey did not prove his claim was for an accidental injury under section 42-1-160 of the South Carolina Code. (3) Brailey’s injury was intentional and thus barred by section 42-9-60 of the South Carolina Code. (4) Brailey failed to meet his burden of proof that he injured his back as alleged. Ultimately, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the Commission’s decision on all four grounds. They found Brailey’s injury compensable and remanding the case for calculation of benefits. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision expressing concerns about the continued validity of the Cooper test. (See below)
Facts:
Facts: Brailey was hired by Michelin on April 17, 2017, and passed a physical examination. He began experiencing back pain while working as a rubber stretcher for large mining tires. Before working for Michelin, Brailey went to the emergency room and his family doctor for back pain. Brailey did not inform Michelin of his preexisting back condition on a post-employment questionnaire. On June 24, 2017, Brailey suffered sharp back pain at work. He sought treatment and was prescribed pain medications and given work restrictions by his doctor. Ultimately, he was denied Workers Compensation benefits, in part because of his misrepresentation on the questionnaire.
ISSUE/HOLDING:
Issue: Was Brailey’s injury was compensable under South Carolina’s law, given the allegation he lied on his post-employment questionnaire?
Holding: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding Brailey’s injury compensable and remanding the case for calculation of benefits. https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2024/28214.html
Reasoning: The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court found that Michelin failed to prove a causal connection as required by the third element of the Cooper test. The Supreme Court went further though. Specifically, they expressed general concerns about the continued validity of the “Cooper” test, suggesting that the test may no longer be appropriate for determining the consequences of “fraud in an employment application.” The Court stopped short of overruling Cooper, but likely gutted it to such a degree it can no longer be successfully asserted at the Workers’ Compensation Commission level.
Cooper v. McDevitt Street Co. https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1973/19628-1.html
In the 1973 case of Cooper v. McDevitt & Street Co., the South Carolina Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether an employee who intentionally misrepresented their physical condition in a pre-employment application could be barred from receiving workers’ compensation benefits after sustaining what would otherwise be a compensable injury. Ultimately, the Court held claimants could be denied benefits if the employer could prove that the employee had lied about preexisting conditions in the application process.
Three-Prong Test from Cooper:
The court established a three-prong test to determine when “fraud in the application” could be successfully asserted as a defense. Each prong must be met by the defendants for the defense to be successful.
1. Intentional Misrepresentation: The employee intentionally concealed a prior injury or preexisting condition on the employment application intending to deceive the employer.
2. Substantial Reliance: The employer must have relied on the employee’s misrepresentation in making the decision to hire the employee. This means that the misrepresentation was a significant factor in the hiring process.
3. Causal Connection: There must be a causal connection between the employee’s misrepresentation and their WC injury. In other words, the injury must be related to the condition that was misrepresented or concealed.
Implications of Brailey:
For decades the Cooper test was used to deny workers’ compensation claims based on misrepresentations in their employment applications. However, Brailey v. Michelin Inc., raised concerns about the continued validity of the Cooper test, in light of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which restricts employers from asking about prior impairments until AFTER a job offer, thereby substantially undermining the “employer’s reliance” prong of the Cooper test. Both this and the Brooks decision are recent wins for Claimants seeking benefits in South Carolina! https://www.kphippslaw.com/brooks-v-benore-logistics-systems/
