Hilton v. Flakeboard America Limited
418 S.C. 245
| S.C. | 2016Background
- Hilton suffered a compensable injury from an insect/spider bite; dispute over whether he reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and needed further treatment.
- Single commissioner observed Hilton testimony and ruled for Hilton, finding he had not reached MMI and attributing past misrepresentations to cognitive deficits from a prior brain injury.
- Employer Flakeboard filed a Form 30 appealing with four general exceptions and 102 specific exceptions; none raised Hilton’s competency, need for a guardian ad litem, or a request for employer-directed medical exam.
- The full Workers’ Compensation Commission, without observing Hilton and sua sponte, vacated and remanded the single commissioner’s order, directing the single commissioner to determine Hilton’s competency and need for a guardian and ordering Flakeboard to have Hilton evaluated by a neurologist of its choice.
- Hilton appealed the interlocutory Commission order to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal as not immediately appealable under S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A); the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether interlocutory Commission order is immediately appealable under § 1-23-380(A) | Hilton: review of a final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy because the Commission sua sponte vacated and ordered a full retrial and employer-directed exam | Flakeboard: appeal is not immediately reviewable; issues raised are preserved only as in Form 30 and final decision review suffices | Court: Immediate appeal allowed — waiting for final decision would be inadequate given Commission’s unexplained, broad sua sponte vacatur and remand |
| Whether Commission exceeded scope of Flakeboard’s exceptions by raising competency/guardian issues sua sponte | Hilton: competency/guardian were not raised and thus Commission improperly introduced new issues and ordered employer-directed exam without request | Flakeboard: contended its general exceptions encompassed those issues (implicit) | Court: Commission erred — competency and guardian issues were not raised; general exceptions are too vague to preserve those matters |
| Whether Commission properly ordered employer-directed neurologic exam | Hilton: ordering exam of employer’s choice without request or explanation was an unexplained, extreme remedy | Flakeboard: relied on statutory authority permitting exams but did not request one here | Court: Ordering the exam sua sponte without explanation was improper in context and contributed to finding immediate appeal warranted |
| Scope of remand on return to Commission | Hilton: remand should be limited to issues raised in Form 30 (the 102 specific exceptions) | Flakeboard: (implicit) Commission may reexamine broader issues on remand | Court: Vacated Court of Appeals’ dismissal and remanded to Commission to address only Flakeboard’s 102 specific exceptions preserved in Form 30 |
Key Cases Cited
- Bone v. U.S. Food Service, 404 S.C. 67 (argument about final-agency-review adequacy; plurality opinion contrasted here)
- Island Packet v. Kittrell, 365 S.C. 332 (case-by-case test for interlocutory review under § 1-23-380)
- Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., 193 S.C. 66 (findings of single commissioner become law of the case unless excepted)
- Brunson v. American Koyo Bearings, 367 S.C. 161 (single commissioner findings are binding absent specific exceptions)
- Jones v. Anderson Cotton Mills, 205 S.C. 247 (general exceptions are too ambiguous to preserve issues for review)
- State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405 (noting rarity of interlocutory appeals in analogous contexts)