782 S.E.2d 753
S.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Russell, a long-time Wal‑Mart assistant manager, injured her back and pelvis at work in 2009 while pregnant; initial treatment was conservative and surgery was not recommended.
- After childbirth, diagnostic testing (MRI), medication, exercises, and an injection were used; Dr. Merritt diagnosed degenerative disc disease at L5‑S1 and found no need for surgery initially.
- A single commissioner in 2011 found Russell reached MMI and awarded 7% permanent partial disability, allowing ongoing anti‑inflammatory medication if causally related.
- Russell filed for review in December 2011 alleging a change of condition for the worse, seeking additional treatment including surgery; a single commissioner found her credible and ordered further care and temporary total disability.
- The full South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, giving limited weight to Russell’s testimony as "conclusory and self‑serving," and relied on MRIs and medical testimony to conclude there was no objective worsening.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the Commission erred as a matter of law by effectively requiring objective evidence (radiographic change) to prove a change of condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claimant must prove a change of condition by objective evidence | Russell: statute requires proof by preponderance; no requirement that evidence be objective—subjective and medical testimony can suffice | Wal‑Mart: change must be shown by objective physical/diagnostic evidence (MRIs showed no change) | Reversed: Commission erred in imposing an objective‑evidence requirement; statute allows proof by preponderance via any competent evidence |
| Whether Russell's testimony was self‑serving and insufficient to show change/new need for surgery | Russell: her credible testimony plus doctors’ opinions showed worsening and new symptoms post‑award | Wal‑Mart: testimony was conclusory/self‑serving and diagnostic tests show no new condition | Court declined to resolve remaining credibility issues after finding legal error; remanded for Commission to reevaluate without imposing objective‑evidence requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Carolinas Recycling Grp. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 398 S.C. 480 (discussion of APA standard of review for Commission decisions)
- Gattis v. Murrells Inlet VFW No. 10420, 353 S.C. 100 (change of condition defined and fact‑finder role explained)
- Robbins v. Walgreens & Broadspire Servs., Inc., 375 S.C. 259 (affirming denial where diagnostic tests before and after showed same condition)
- Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17 (Commission may consider lay and medical evidence; appellate court will not reweigh witnesses)
- Tiller v. Nat’l Health Care Ctr. of Sumter, 334 S.C. 333 (Commission has discretion to weigh all evidence on causation)
- Ballenger v. S. Worsted Corp., 209 S.C. 463 (lay testimony can support award despite conflicting medical testimony)
- Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196 (appellate court may reverse where decision affected by error of law)
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598 (if dispositive issue resolved, no need to decide remaining issues)