Crisp v. Southco., Inc.
401 S.C. 627
| S.C. | 2013Background
- Petitioner Crisp suffered a work accident on March 10, 2004 while performing tasks for SouthCo., Inc.; initial hospital records showed head and hand injuries but no brain injury.
- Medical treatment included surgery on the right hand; treating physicians did not diagnose a brain injury and early records showed neurologically intact status.
- Over time, various doctors evaluated cognitive, neuropsychological, and psychiatric impairments; Dr. Moss diagnosed traumatic brain injury and other brain-related conditions, while Dr. Collings questioned the existence of a physical brain injury.
- MRI of the brain showed no abnormalities; neuropsychological testing indicated cognitive deficits and potential frontal lobe injury according to Dr. Moss, with other experts preserving doubt.
- The Single Commissioner found brain injury-related diagnoses but concluded no physical brain injury; the Commission affirmed, then the circuit court reversed, and the court of appeals upheld the Commission’s non-physical-brain-injury finding.
- The Supreme Court remands to the Commission to determine permanency and whether the injury constitutes physical brain damage under 42-9-10(C), which would qualify for lifetime benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioner sustained physical brain damage under 42-9-10(C). | Petitioner presented objective neuropsychological and clinical evidence of brain injury. | Record lacks objective evidence of physical brain damage; brain injury present but not a physical brain injury. | Remand to determine physical brain damage and entitlement to lifetime benefits. |
| Whether permanency and lifetime benefits hinge on 42-9-10(C) determination. | If physical brain damage is established, benefits may be lifelong. | Without a showing of physical brain damage, 500-week limit applies. | Remand to resolve MMI and permanency as to brain injury. |
| What evidentiary standard suffices to prove physical brain damage (imaging vs neuropsychological testing). | Neuropsychological testing can demonstrate brain damage even without MRI/CT findings. | Objective imaging is necessary to prove physical brain damage. | Court clarifies imaging is not the sole proof; relapse on remand to weigh all evidence. |
| Effect of the APA standard of review on remand decision regarding brain injury determination. | Record contains substantial evidence supporting brain injury findings. | Evidence supports no physical brain injury; commission misapprehended. | Remand consistent with APA to allow commission to resolve permanency and brain-damage question. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparks v. Palmetto Hardwood, Inc., 401 S.C. 619 (S.C. 2013) (physical brain damage as life-long requirement under 42-9-10(C))
- Adams v. Texfi Indus., 320 S.C. 213 (S.C. 1995) (statutory interpretation in workers’ comp context)
- James v. Anne’s Inc., 390 S.C. 188 (S.C. 2010) (permanency concepts and duration of compensation)
- Clade v. Champion Labs., 330 S.C. 8 (S.C. 1998) (burden on employee to prove injury by accident and eligibility)
- Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422 (S.C. 2007) (APA review standards for agency findings)
- Floyd v. C.B. Askins & Co., 382 S.C. 84 (Ct. App. 2009) (catastrophic injuries and life/needs-based considerations)