Turner v. SAIIA Construction
419 S.C. 98
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Turner, a heavy equipment operator for SAHA Construction, was found unconscious on April 19, 2012 beside his dump truck and has no memory of the incident.
- Emergency treatment revealed a small subdural hemorrhage, left-lobe contusion, and T3–T4 endplate compression deformities; no skull fracture was found.
- Prior to the fall Turner had recent back complaints and prescriptions (Ultram, Flexeril, Neurontin); he had visited providers days before the event and complained of not feeling well at work.
- Coworkers found Turner on the ground; none witnessed the fall and their testimony conflicted with Turner’s claim that they saw him on the truck steps.
- The single commissioner denied workers’ compensation benefits, finding Turner failed to prove a compensable injury by accident within the course and scope of employment.
- The Appellate Panel affirmed; Turner appealed to this court challenging (1) application of the unexplained-death presumption, (2) factual findings, (3) causation/arising-out-of-employment, and (4) the Commission’s practice of having Respondents draft a proposed order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unexplained-death presumption applies where claimant survives but cannot remember the accident | Turner: presumption should apply because he was found injured at the workplace and cannot explain how the injury occurred | Respondents: presumption traditionally applies only in death cases and should not be extended | Court: Presumption is not extended to surviving claimants without memory; even if applied, evidence of preexisting conditions rebutted it |
| Whether the Commission erred in affirming single commissioner’s factual findings | Turner: certain findings (e.g., unwitnessed accident, memory loss) were erroneous | Respondents: findings are supported by record testimony and medical evidence | Court: Findings are supported by substantial evidence; appellate court will not reweigh facts |
| Whether Turner proved injury arose out of and in the course of employment (causation) | Turner: fall occurred at work and thus arose from employment | Respondents: fall was unexplained and no evidence showed employment contributed to the cause or effect; possible preexisting condition | Court: Claimant bore burden to show causal nexus; unexplained fall not compensable absent work-related contribution; substantial evidence supports denial |
| Whether it was improper for Respondents to draft the Commission’s proposed order | Turner: Commission erred by allowing Respondents to draft findings/conclusions | Respondents: Commission requested proposed order and retained right to modify before signing | Court: No error where Commission asked a party to prepare a proposed order and reserved right to modify/delete portions |
Key Cases Cited
- Packer v. Corbett Canning Co., 238 S.C. 431 (1961) (articulates the unexplained-death presumption)
- Owens v. Ocean Forest Club, 196 S.C. 97 (1941) (earlier authority on presumption of compensability in unexplained death)
- Jennings v. Chambers Dev. Co., 335 S.C. 249 (1999) (explains presumption establishes employment connection but not the incident of accident)
- Janney v. J.W. Jones Lumber Co., 145 N.C. App. 402 (2001) (North Carolina appellate decision declining to extend unexplained-death presumption to surviving claimants without memory)
- Crosby v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., 330 S.C. 489 (1998) (unexplained falls require evidence linking employment to cause; lack of proof supports denial)
- Bagwell v. Ernest Burwell, Inc., 227 S.C. 444 (1955) (an unexplained fall is generally not compensable unless employment contributed to cause/effect)
- Nicholson v. S.C. Dep’t of Social Services, 411 S.C. 381 (2015) (fall while performing work duties can, in some circumstances, establish causation as a matter of law)