Dozier v. American Red Cross
411 S.C. 274
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Dozier, a phlebotomist, suffered an admitted work injury (Jan. 17, 2008) and initially alleged bilateral wrist injuries and carpal tunnel; ARC admitted left wrist injury and later both wrists.
- Parties entered consent/commission orders and appeals; ARC authorized Dr. Timothy Zgleszewski as treating physician and paid for extensive treatment (including stellate ganglion blocks) over ~2 years.
- Dozier later claimed CRPS/RSD and sought permanent total disability based on a 5-pound lifting restriction and medical opinions attributing a 12% CNS impairment for CRPS/RSD.
- Medical opinions conflicted: Drs. Zgleszewski and Moore diagnosed CRPS/RSD; Drs. Mancuso and Bitting did not. Vocational experts also conflicted on employability under restrictions.
- Commissioner McCaskill (and the Appellate Panel on appeal) found Dozier not permanently and totally disabled, barred relitigation of CRPS/RSD by res judicata (later reversed here), rejected equitable estoppel/waiver claims, and credited evidence denying CRPS/RSD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dozier) | Defendant's Argument (ARC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Permanent total disability under §42-9-10 | Dozier: 5-lb restriction and medical reports render her unable to obtain work — entitled to permanent total disability | ARC: Jobs exist within restrictions; Dozier can work; at most permanent partial to wrists | Held: Not permanently and totally disabled; Appellate Panel’s factual finding (work available) affirmed (substantial evidence supports crediting opinions and vocational report) |
| 2) Res judicata as a bar to litigating CRPS/RSD | Dozier: Prior proceedings and Appellate Panel order foreclose relitigation; CRPS was before the Commission earlier | ARC: Dozier previously raised CRPS and did not obtain relief on appeal; issue thus precluded | Held: Res judicata did not bar Dozier from raising CRPS/RSD because prior orders did not finally adjudicate CRPS/RSD |
| 3) Estoppel / waiver preventing ARC from denying CRPS/RSD | Dozier: ARC authorized and paid treatment for CRPS/RSD for long period (728 days), so ARC should be estopped / waived right to deny compensability | ARC: Continued payment and selection of treating physician did not amount to concealment or intentional relinquishment of right to contest compensability | Held: Equitable estoppel and waiver do not apply — Dozier failed to meet elements for estoppel and ARC did not knowingly abandon its right to contest compensability |
| 4) Substantial evidence of CRPS/RSD causation | Dozier: Competent medical evidence (treating physicians) proves CRPS/RSD as work-related | ARC: Medical evidence preponderates against CRPS/RSD (experts and imaging); causation not proved | Held: Appellate Panel’s factual determination that Dozier did not prove CRPS/RSD is supported by substantial evidence (conflicting expert testimony resolved for the Panel) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (scope of review under APA) (discussing appeals from Appellate Panel)
- Stephenson v. Rice Servs., Inc., 323 S.C. 113, 473 S.E.2d 699 (1996) (distinguishing medical model and earning-impairment model for total disability)
- Wynn v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 238 S.C. 1, 118 S.E.2d 812 (1961) (employee totally disabled when only limited tasks exist for which no stable market exists)
- Mullinax v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 318 S.C. 431, 458 S.E.2d 76 (factfinder discretion where medical evidence conflicts)
- Olson v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 663 S.E.2d 497 (substantial evidence standard; possibility of inconsistent conclusions does not defeat substantial evidence)
- Bennett v. S.C. Dep’t of Corr., 305 S.C. 310, 408 S.E.2d 230 (res judicata requires issues addressed with finality by prior tribunal)
- Estridge v. Joslyn Clark Controls, Inc., 325 S.C. 532, 482 S.E.2d 577 (prior order that did not discuss psychological injury did not preclude later litigation)
- Johnson v. Greenwood Mills, Inc., 317 S.C. 248, 452 S.E.2d 832 (res judicata bars reassertion when same issue was raised and denied in prior unappealed order)
- Zabinski v. Bright Acres Assocs., 346 S.C. 580, 553 S.E.2d 110 (elements of equitable estoppel)