*1 tо the statistical juxtaposed when case is de minimis this Dinkins, Ford, and McFadden. Hyman, Register, in analysis
CONCLUSION closing during comment the Assistant Solicitor’s We rule call his uncle as witness to Primus’ failure to argument as Thus, permitting in the trial court erred improper. instruction. Consider- issuing jury a curative remark and of his excul- guilt, plausibility of Primus’ ing the evidence evidentiary record its reviewing and story, patory error is such as prejudicial entirety, probability we find did not present hold the State to mandate reversal. We analysis error guilt. A harmless overwhelming evidence convictions for kid- Primus’ Accordingly, reversal. requires ABHAN are napping
REVERSED. C.J., HUFF, J.,
HEARN, concur.
v. Self-Insurer, Respondent. BI-LO, INC., Employer and No. 3215. Appeals Court of of South Carolina.
Heard June 2000. July Decided Rehearing Sept. Denied *2 Moorhead, Greenville, of for appellant. Donald R. Mаrion, Jones, Haynsworth, McKay of & Guer- Jeffrey S. ard, Greenville, for respondent. of Painter, Nexsen, Pruet, F. of Ja-
Amicus Curiae: Samuel Pollard, Columbia, for Self-Insurers cobs & South Carolina O’Connor, Association; Ezell, D. Michelle DeLuca Jeffrey Greenville, Gibbes, Gallivan, SC Boyd, both of White & Haselden, Association; Alford Attorneys’ Defense Trial Clover; Ballard, Haselden, and Desa Boloyan, Owen & Columbia, Association. Lawyers for SC Trial *3 West both GOOLSBY, Judge: action, Sherry Brown appeals
In this workers’ of the full commission affirming a circuit court order an order obstructing from that her counsel to ceasе and desist required and her treat- employer’s representatives her contact between We affirm. ing physician.
FACTS in a hernia while injury resulting an Brown sustained Bi-Lo, Employer (Employer) for Inc. June working injury, for the which Brown with medical treatment provided complica- some surgery The caused surgery. included hernia extremity. her lower neuropathy and led to tions Pennsylvania, Employer moved to subsequently Brown move. In treatment after her providing to continue agreed ongoing Brown’s regarding arose whether question for al- treatment, sought Brown medical treatment including falls, injury. to the work subsequent leged related hearing requesting filed a Form 50 response, Brown falls. relating to these injuries treatment obtain medical nurse, Foriska, Employer hired rehabilitation Judith contact treating physicians Brown’s regarding the nature of her condition and the cause of her falls. Subsequently, Brown’s counsel wrote a letter to Foriska her not to warning discuss Brown’s treating physicians condition with and threat- ening aсtion if legal comply. she did not Brown’s counsel also wrote similar treating letters to Brown’s physicians advising them not to engage in ex Employ- communications with (Carrier) er or Employer’s carrier or representatives. letters, aAs result of these one of Brown’s treating physicians, Boyle, Dr. Brian indicated that respond he would not to any Employer’s or Carrier’s representatives.
STANDARD OF REVIEW The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for by decisions the South Carolina Work ers’ Cоmpensation may Commission.1 We not substitute our judgment for that of the commission as to the weight of the fact, evidence questions on may but reverse if the decision is affected may error of law.2 We reverse or modify a decision if findings and conclusions of agency are law, affected error clearly erroneous in view reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record, or arbitrary or capricious characterized abuse of discretion оr clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.3
LAW/ANALYSIS Brown argues the circuit court erred in requiring her counsel to cease and desist from obstructing contact between Employer’s or Carrier’s treating and her phy sicians. disagree. We
The Sоuth Carolina workers’ compensation statutes
regulations
compel a physician
provide
employers with
Bi-Lo, Inc.,
(1981).
1. Lark v.
276 S.C.
all medical information and facts relevant to the claim commu- nicated to them еmployee during treatment. Carolina Code section provides part: 42-15-80 relevant
No fact communicated to or otherwise learned any physician or who have surgeon may attended examined employee, may present any or who have been at exami- nation, privileged, shall be either in hearings provided any this Title or action at law brought recover damages against any employer may who have accepted the compensation provisions of this Title.4 Furthermore, section 42-15-95 states: existing
All
compiled by
facility,
information
a health care
44-7-130,
defined in
provider
Section
or a health care
pursuant
licensed
to Title 40 pertaining directly to a work-
ers’
claim
provided
must bе
to the insurance
carrier, the employer,
employee,
attorneys,
or the
Commission,
South Carolina
within
days
fourteen
after
receipt
request.5
written
67-1301(A)
Additionally,
Regulation
South Carolina Code
requires
practitioner
facility
or treatment
...
“[a]
[to]
furnish upon request all medical information relevant to the
claimant,
employee’s complaint
injury
to the
the employer,
the employer’s representative, or the Commission.”6
support
argument
her
that ex
communications
between a claimant’s employer
or its
and a
physician
claimant’s
should
prohibited,
upon
be
Brown relies
Hedge-
South Carolina State Board Medical Examiners v.
path7 and
v. England.8
McCormick
Both of these cases
recognize
physician’s duty
confidentiality
existence of a
and hold that a physician
duty by revealing
violates this
confidences
patient
compelled
when the revelation was neither
(1976).
§
Id.
42-15-80
(Supp.1999).
§
Id.
42-15-95
67-1301(A)
Ann.Regs.
(Supp.1999).
6. 25A S.C.Code
(1997).
7. 325 S.C.
patient.9 McCormick, however, involved physicians
Hedgepath and a rule has proceedings. in divorce Such revealing confidences in cases. applied not been workers’ bar, to the disclo- Brown has not consented In the case at information; therefore, access to informa- sure of her medical if it is only can be obtained treating physicians tion from her Regulation 42-15-95 and 67- by law. Section compelled 1301(A)10 the to reveal all compel treating physicians both upon relevant to the сlaim claimant’s medical information represen- the employer, employer’s the claimant’s request tative, or the commission. duty his or her a does not breach physician
We hold information relevant to an confidentiality by providing in representative or its employee’s employer claim to an compels physi the compensation cases because law to do so. cian
Furthermore,
parte
no reason to ban ex
com
we find
employer
or its
munications between
policies underlying
of the
physician
light
social legislation
Act.11
Act is a form of
“[T]he
169,
726; McCormick,
Hedgepath,
at
9.
Booth v.
312 Or.
823 P.2d
409 n. 12
(explaining
compensation system
that thе workers’
was created to
process by
injured
"streamline the
paid
which
workers could be
for
compensable injuries”
declining
preclude employer-physician
and
legislature
expressly
communication when the
did not
undertake to do
so);
Co.,
(S.D.1994)
Sowards v. Hitts Materials
521 N.W.2d
652-53
(holding
filing
the
of a
physi
workers’
claim waives the
cian-patient privilege
get away
”[t]he
because
whole idea is to
the
from
procedures
cumbersome
... and to reach a
decision
quickest possible
informality
only prevents
shortest and
route. This
technicalities,
simplifies
expedites
the defeat of claims
but
and
results.") (internal
omitted);
substantially just
achievement of
citations
Works,
(Ct.App.),
Hortman v. Louisiana Steel
Moreover, argument, noted at oral Employer to inter- opportunity representatives employers merely of the presence outside the physicians view the same access and their employers provides employee.14 evidence as the to medical AFFIRMED.
CURETON, J. concurs. MOREHEAD, J., opinion. in a separate concurs Acting *7 MOREHEAD, Judge (concurring): Acting Howеver, I am con- majority’s opinion. I with the concur commu- allowing ex by the for abuse potential cerned Nevertheless, I feel nications under these circumstances. have to be addressed South abuses will potential these amendmеnts or statutory Legislature through Carolina through regulations. Commission (1980) ("The compensa- right to swift and sure receives tion; immunity employ- employer from tort actions receives ee.”). (D.S.C.1991) (noting Wyman, Felder v. 139 F.R.D. 14. See stating, privilege recognize physician-patient a Carolina does not opponent’s party to restrict an access privilege a no is entitled “Absent (D.D.C. ...”); Lilly & 99 F.R.D. to a witness Doe v. Eli (“[N]o 1983) anything resembling proprietary party litigation has party privilege no is entitled any evidence. Absent witness’s witness....”). opponent’s access to to restrict