Bone v. U.S. Food Service
404 S.C. 67
| S.C. | 2013Background
- Cathy Bone alleged a work-related back injury on June 26, 2007; employer/carrier (U.S. Food Service/Indemnity) denied compensability, asserting injury occurred July 3 while changing a tire.
- The single commissioner and the Commission Appellate Panel denied Bone’s claim; Bone appealed to the circuit court.
- The circuit court reversed, holding the injury was compensable as a matter of law and remanded to the Commission to determine benefits.
- Petitioners sought further appellate review; the Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal as not arising from a “final judgment.”
- The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and, after rehearing, affirmed the Court of Appeals: a circuit-court remand to an agency is not a final judgment under the APA and thus not immediately appealable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bone) | Defendant's Argument (Petitioners) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a circuit court order reversing the Commission on compensability and remanding for further proceedings is immediately appealable under the APA (§1-23-390) | Circuit-court reversal is appealable only as provided by APA; did not contest finality of Commission’s original order to circuit court | Circuit-court determination that injury is compensable is a final judgment equivalent and therefore immediately appealable | Held: Not appealable — remand to the agency is an intermediate order, not a “final judgment” under §1-23-390; appeal must await a final agency award |
| Whether the APA’s "final judgment" requirement should be read flexibly (e.g., "involving the merits") | Favor strict APA framework; judicial review limited to final judgments per statute | Urged a case-by-case or "involving the merits" approach so some interlocutory appeals (where merits decided) are allowed | Held: APA controls; the general interlocutory "involving the merits" exception (§14-3-330) does not apply to agency appeals; courts must apply final-judgment rule |
| Whether precedents allowing appeals of certain interlocutory agency-related orders remain good law | Relied on APA and prior holdings restricting interlocutory appeals | Relied on cases (Brown, Mungo, etc.) where courts allowed appeals when an issue affecting substantial rights was finally decided despite remand | Held: Montjoy and Charlotte-Mecklenburg control; precedents relying on pre-APA interlocutory concepts are inapplicable to APA appeals |
| Whether policy/fairness (employer pays benefits during appeal) justifies permitting immediate appeals | Emphasized statutory scheme requires continuation of benefits during appeal; legislature may amend if desired | Argued it is unfair to force employer to pay when compensability remains contestable; immediate appeal needed | Held: Policy concerns do not override statutory final-judgment requirement; APA’s structure and legislative choices control |
Key Cases Cited
- Montjoy v. Asten-Hill Dryer Fabrics, 316 S.C. 52, 446 S.E.2d 618 (S.C. 1994) (orders remanding cases to administrative agencies are not directly appealable)
- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envt’l Control, 387 S.C. 265, 692 S.E.2d 894 (S.C. 2010) (APA governs agency appeals; appeals limited to final agency decisions)
- Blakely v. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 310 S.C. 29, 425 S.E.2d 37 (S.C. 1993) (discussed in Montjoy; remand orders that affect merits were treated differently historically)
- Good v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 201 S.C. 32, 21 S.E.2d 209 (S.C. 1942) (definition of final judgment: not final if it leaves open questions of fact)
- Brown v. Greenwood Mills, Inc., 366 S.C. 379, 622 S.E.2d 546 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005) (circuit-court order that finally decides an issue affecting a substantial right is appealable)
- Mungo v. Rental Uniform Serv. of Florence, Inc., 383 S.C. 270, 678 S.E.2d 825 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009) (order mandating an award on change of condition was final and appealable despite remand)
- Owens v. Canal Wood Corp., 281 S.C. 491, 316 S.E.2d 385 (S.C. 1984) (remand for additional testimony is interlocutory and not reviewable)
- Hunt v. Whitt, 279 S.C. 343, 306 S.E.2d 621 (S.C. 1983) (same)
- Canteen v. McLeod Reg’l Med. Ctr., 384 S.C. 617, 682 S.E.2d 504 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009) (example of interlocutory-merits analysis later overruled by Charlotte-Mecklenburg)
- Oakwood Landfill, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envt’l Control, 381 S.C. 120, 671 S.E.2d 646 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009) (similar)