Issue:
In this 2024 WC case, the South Carolina Court of Appeals found the Claimant only sustained an injury to one body part-his right shoulder; making him unable to successfully pursue he a wage loss claim.
Conterras Facts:
Conteras had been a firefighter for 22 years, when he suffered a significant injury to his right shoulder. He ultimately underwent 4 shoulder surgeries. He also received ratings to his shoulder and to his clavicle from an IME. His treating doctor also gave him a 3% rating to his biceps. Claimant filed a Form 50 alleging injuries to his right shoulder, right upper extremity, right glenohumeral ligament, right clavicle, right scapula, right lateral deltoid, right bicep, and right distal clavicle. The Defendants filed a Form 51 only admitting the injury to his shoulder.
Procedural History:
The Case has a long procedural history. It went to the Court of Appeals twice. The first time it was remanded, the Appellate Panel awarded Contreras 35% PPD to the right shoulder, and found the “award encompassed any incidental effect on [his] right clavicle, right bicep, and/or right bicep tendon.” It stated Contreras was not entitled to a separate award for “the right arm or right clavicle.” This appeal followed.
Conclusion on Appeal:
No red-letter rule of law should be derived from this decision. Instead, it is your standard “sufficiency of the evidence” case. Basically, the Court of Appeals found there was substantial evidence to support to the decision of the Appellate Panel and; therefore, because of their limited scope of review, they would not disturb it on appeal. The Court affirmed the decision of the Appellate Panel. Specifically, the Court found it was supported by “substantial evidence.” The Appeals Court admitted there was “some evidence” to support the Claimant’s position that multiple body parts were involved, including the claimant’s own testimony and an IME. In this case, the Court of Appeals, rightly determined the Appellate panel weighed the evidence before them and made a sound decision. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/sc-court-of-appeals/115929699.html
Dent v. East Richland County:
The Conterras Court did not espouse a claimant must have a “rating” to a member for it to be compensable. On the contrary, the Court cited and did not overrule the Dent v. E. Richland Cnty. Pub. Serv. Dist., 4. https://casetext.com/case/dent-v-e-richland-cnty-pub-serv-dist-1 In Dent, the Court of Appeals found the claimant “presented sufficient evidence to support his claims that his back injury had caused additional injury or impairment to his leg” as he “complained of persistent pain, numbness, and weakness in his leg to his doctors, and two doctors diagnosed him with lumbar radiculopathy.” Id. at 202, 813 S.E.2d at 891. However, in that case the Appellate Panel found the claimant’s back injury “affected” his leg. Id. This court found substantial evidence in the record of an injury affecting his leg and thus, claimant could proceed under Section 42-9-10 of the SC Code Ann. Id. at 202-03, 813 S.E.2d at 891.t
The takeaway from Dent and Conterras is that the Court of Appeals will affirm a decision from the Appellate Panel supported by “substantial evidence” in the record.
Always consult an attorney if you have questions about the value of your claim. https://www.kphippslaw.com/denied-claim/
