Clemmons v. Lowe's Home Centers, 27708

In Sept. 2010, Clemmons slipped at work, suffered a cervical herniation with spinal cord compression, underwent fusion surgery, and continued to have pain, balance and walking difficulties.
Treating surgeon Dr. Drye assigned a 25% whole-person impairment (71% regional spine impairment) under the AMA Guides and imposed permanent work restrictions; Lowe's accommodated and returned Clemmons to a cashier position.
Other evaluators assigned higher impairment ratings: a physical therapist gave 36% whole-person (91% regional spine) and another physician gave 40% whole-person (99% regional spine); Dr. Gal Margalit opined >50% functional loss of the back.
The Workers' Compensation Commission found only a 48% loss of use to the back and awarded permanent partial disability; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari, held the record uniformly showed >50% loss of use of the back, reversed, and ruled that evidence of a claimant's ability to work alone cannot rebut the statutory presumption of total and permanent disability for a back loss of 50% or more.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission's impairment finding was supported by substantial evidence	All medical evidence shows >50% loss of use of the back, entitling Clemmons to scheduled total disability	Commission reasonably relied on Dr. Drye and other evidence to find only 48% loss and award partial disability	Court: Commission's finding unsupported; all medical evidence points to >50% loss — Clemmons entitled to presumption of permanent total disability
Whether a claimant's ability to work (return to employment) can rebut the §42-9-30(21) presumption of total disability for ≥50% loss of back use	Return to work is not probative to scheduled-member analysis; claimant remains entitled to presumption	Lowe's argued return to work and Dr. Drye's lower whole-person rating rebut total-disability presumption	Court: Mere ability or return to work is insufficient alone to rebut the statutory presumption; Watson is overruled on this point

Wigfall v. Tideland Utils., Inc., 354 S.C. 100 (S.C. 2003) (distinguishes economic and medical models; scheduled-member relies on medical model)
Stephenson v. Rice Servs., Inc., 323 S.C. 113 (S.C. 1996) (recognizes scheduled awards need not be predicated on lost earning capacity)
Watson v. Xtra Mile Driver Training, Inc., 399 S.C. 455 (S.C. Ct. App. 2012) (court of appeals held return-to-work could rebut presumption; overruled insofar as it permits ability-to-work alone to rebut)
Polk v. E.I. duPont de Nemours Co., 250 S.C. 468 (S.C. 1969) (when evidence points to one conclusion, the issue becomes one of law)
Jewell v. R.B. Pond Co., 198 S.C. 86 (S.C. 1941) (scheduled-member awards indemnify for specified body-part loss rather than solely wage loss)
Adams v. Texfi Indus., 341 S.C. 401 (S.C. 2000) (defines substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)