There are four statutory affirmative defenses to a WC claim in SC-intoxication, statute of limitations, notice and willful intention. We examined “Notice” in the last newsletter. This issue we will explore the state of the law as it relates to the affirmative defense of “willful intention.” To perfect this defense, Defendants have the burden of proving the Claimant acted with “willful intention to injure or kill himself or another.” S.C. Code Ann. 42-9-60. https://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/title-42/chapter-9/section-42-9-60/ Precedent case law carved out an extremely narrow defense to be used “only in those cases where it is shown that the acts of the employee are so serious and aggravated as to evince a willful intent to injure.” Zeigler v. South Carolina Law Enforcement, 250 S.C. 326, 329, 157 S.E. 2d 598, 599 (1967)(emphasis added). https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1967/18722-1.html
Narrow Exception:
Why would the exception be so narrow? If it was not, application of Section 42-9-60 would compromise the very premise of the “no fault” Workers’ Compensation in South Carolina. As generally “neither the fault of the of the employer nor that of the employee is a critical factor in determining whether an employee is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.” Yousman v. Coastal Petroleum Co., 333 S.C. 195, 508 S.E. 2d 43 (1998). Precedent caselaw offers a clear roadmap explaining what behavior is willful, verses what behavior is spontaneous.
Behavior that is “grave and serious…”
In Zeigler, the leading case where a claimant was denied benefits, two SLED agents were in a physical fight, broken up by a third party. At that point, the Claimant and another officer went outside. The court noted “both…were armed” and thus it could reasonably inferred claimant agreed to settle their “dispute by violence.” Both the only eye-witness and the shooter, testified the Claimant actually shot first. Id., at 331. The court noted specifically that the “fatal altercation” was the result of conduct by the claimant that was so “grave or serious…as to evidence a willful intent on his part to injure his fellow employee, thereby barring any right to benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Id. (emphasis added.)
Behavior that is “spontaneous and impulsive…”
Ziegler is distinguished in Kinsey v. Champion American Service Center. Kinsey, 268 S.C. 177, 232 S.E.2d. 720 (S. Ct. 1977) https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1977/20363-1.html In Kinsey, the claimant, who was drinking on the job, was instructed to leave by a co-worker named Brown. There were several incidents that led to their final encounter, which started after Brown instructed the claimant to sit in the front office if he was not going home and before Brown “realized anything” he was on the ground fighting, inferring the claimant started the fight that led to his injury. Here, the court said the statute does not afford a defense “based merely on who strikes the first blow.” Id., at 181. Instead, the court found the defense limited to those case where “acts of the employee are so serious and aggravated as to evince a willful intent to injure.” Id. The Court explained, “if an altercation is spontaneous, impulsive, instinctive or otherwise lacking a deliberate formed intention to do injury, the statutory defense is unavailable.” Id.
Kinsey was cited and affirmed by Yousman. Yousman, 333 S.C. 195, 508 S.E. 2d 43 (1998). In Yousman, there was conflicting evidence about how a fight began at work wherein Yousman sustained injuries. Yousman testified Parson’s, his supervisor, pushed him first and called him a racial slur. Parson’s testified he never used a racial slur and instead that Yousman became irate and grabbed and slung him into a wall after receiving a verbal warning. Yousman, at 333 S.C. 200. Ultimately the claim was compensable after the Court of Appeals found evidence, in the form of the claimant’s own testimony, that he reacted spontaneously and without willful intent to injure when Parsons directed a racial slur at him.” Id.
If you are injured in an incident at work and not getting benefits, consult an attorney immediately. https://www.kphippslaw.com/steps-to-take-post-accident/