Watson v. Xtra Mile Driver Training, Inc.
399 S.C. 455
| S.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Watson, employed by XTRA, slipped at work causing back injury; medical treatment followed; MMI reached August 12, 2009; FCE by Tuomey rehabilitation suggested light work; XTRA limited TTD after MMI and sought credits; single commissioner found 50% back impairment but not PTD; Appellate Panel affirmed; dispute centers on admissibility of FCE strength category and PTD status.
- FCE produced strength conclusions using DOT guidelines; Shadbolt prepared the report; Brown provided opposing vocational view.
- Watson argued the strength category was generated by a computer and not qualified under Rule 702; objected to admission.
- XTRA argued the FCE was admissible since SC Rules of Evidence do not govern WC proceedings and the weight is for the Panel to decide.
- XTRA sought credit for TTD paid post-MMI; Dr. Chokshi and other evidence supported MMI; equity aligns with statutory precedent.
- The parties briefed on PTD under §42-9-10 and §42-9-30(21); medical and economic models both support non-PTD finding.
- The Appellate Panel’s findings were supported by substantial evidence; Watson not PTD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the FCE strength category | Watson: computer-generated, not Rule 702-qualifies as expert | XTRA: SC Rules of Evidence don’t apply in WC cases; weight on Panel | Admissible |
| Whether Watson is permanently and totally disabled under §42-9-10 | Watson argues PTD established by medical/economic model | XTRA argues substantial evidence supports not PTD | Not PTD affirmed |
| Whether §42-9-30(21) creates PTD presumption and rebuttal | Watson seeks PTD under presumption; evidence insufficient to rebut | XTRA rebutted presumption via medical/economic evidence | Presumption rebutted; not PTD affirmed |
| Credit for TTD paid after MMI | Watson argues no post-MMI credit; equity | XTRA entitled to credit after MMI per law | Credit affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Bob Bennett Ford, 339 S.C. 68 (S.C. 2000) (Rules on evidentiary admissibility in WC vary from strict evidence rules)
- Hallums v. Michelin Tire Corp., 308 S.C. 498 (S.C. 1992) (WC procedure leniency in evidentiary standards)
- Conran v. Joe Jenkins Realty, Inc., 263 S.C. 332 (S.C. 1974) (Burden to place record foundation; evidentiary issues)
- Wynn v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. of S.C., 238 S.C. 1 (S.C. 1961) (Disability measured by lost earning capacity; total disability concept)
- Simmons v. City of Charleston, 349 S.C. 64 (Ct. App. 2002) (Total disability not limited to complete helplessness; market for services considered)
- Coleman v. Quality Concrete Prods., Inc., 245 S.C. 625 (S.C. 1965) (Economic test for total disability; burden on employee)
- Bateman v. Town & Country Furniture Co., 287 S.C. 158 (Ct. App. 1985) (Presumption topics under §42-9-30(21) discussed)
- Curiel v. Envtl. Mgmt. Servs. (MS), 376 S.C. 23 (S.C. 2007) (Equity and statutory interplay in WC awards)
- Regions Bank v. Wingard Props., Inc., 394 S.C. 241 (Ct. App. 2011) (Equitable remedies in WC context)
- Smith v. S.C. Dep’t of Mental Health, 335 S.C. 396 (S.C. 1999) (Temporary disability considerations and timing)
- Dodge v. Bruccoli, Clark, Layman, Inc., 334 S.C. 574 (Ct. App. 1999) (MMI does not preclude related medical benefits)