Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
REVERSED
C. Daniel Vega, of Chappell Smith & Arden, P.A., of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Johnnie W. Baxley III, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.
Russell injured her back in 2009 while working at a Wal-Mart store in Conway. The commission found Russell suffered a 7% permanent partial disability, and awarded her twenty-one weeks of temporary total disability compensation. In 2011, Russell requested review of her award, claiming there had been a “change of condition caused by the original injury” pursuant to
A single commissioner conducted a full evidentiary hearing on the 2011 claim on February 11, 2013. In a detailed order dated August 5, 2013, the commissioner found Russell had proven a change of condition. The commissioner ordered Wal-Mart to pay temporary total disability benefits beyond the original twenty-one weeks “through the present date and continuing.” The commissioner based the award on Russell‘s testimony, and the testimony and medical records of two treating physicians. The commissioner explained in her order she relied on testimony of the two physicians who described a “physical, anatomical change” and an “increase in the size of the disc protrusion,” demonstrated by an “objective” comparison of MRI images taken before and after the award.
An appellate panel reversed the commissioner. The panel dismissed Russell‘s testimony on the ground “it is conclusory and self-serving.” The panel discounted the testimony and medical records of the two physicians, stating, “Both [physicians] ultimately testified there was no objective or significant radiographical difference to be noted in the MRI scans done before and after the original award.” In an order dated January 30, 2014, the panel found Russell “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence . . . [she] has sustained a change of condition.”
Russell appealed to the court of appeals. The court of appeals found the appellate panel “erred in requiring a change of condition to be established by objective evidence.” Russell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 415 S.C. 395, 398, 782 S.E.2d 753, 755 (Ct. App. 2016). The court of appeals reversed the panel and remanded “to the Commission,” 415 S.C. at 401, 782 S.E.2d at 757, with no express remand instructions.
Russell appealed the September 15, 2017 order to the court of appeals. In an unpublished decision, the court of appeals found the appellate panel‘s remand order was not immediately appealable and dismissed the appeal. Russell filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court. She argued the commission‘s repeated remands for new hearings created a “perpetual”1 “cycle of orders and appeals such that [she] will be deprived of an adequate remedy.” We granted the petition, and now reverse.
II. Analysis
One primary goal of the Workers’ Compensation Act is to provide quick and efficient resolution of work-related injury claims so neither employers nor employees become bogged down in complicated and protracted litigation. See Peay v. U.S. Silica Co., 313 S.C. 91, 94, 437 S.E.2d 64, 65 (1993) (recognizing “Workers’ compensation laws were intended by the Legislature to . . . provid[e] sure, swift recovery for workplace injuries regardless of fault“). This Court recently emphasized the goal, stating, “The Workers’ Compensation Act was designed to supplant tort law by providing a no-fault system focusing on quick recovery, relatively ascertainable awards, and limited litigation.” Nicholson v. S.C. Dep‘t of Soc. Servs., 411 S.C. 381, 389, 769 S.E.2d 1, 5 (2015) (citing Wigfall v. Tideland Utils., Inc., 354 S.C. 100, 115, 580 S.E.2d 100, 107 (2003)).2 The court of appeals addressed this goal in
another case in which the commission unreasonably delayed addressing the merits of claims, stating, “If the claimants were entitled to benefits, they were entitled to receive them many years ago. If the claimants were not entitled to benefits, [the employers] were entitled to have the claims denied many years ago.” Ex parte S.C. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass‘n, 411 S.C. 501, 506, 768 S.E.2d 670, 673 (Ct. App. 2015).
The Administrative Procedures Act limits the role of the judicial branch of government in meeting the goal of quick decisions in limited litigation by restricting appeals to final decisions in most cases. See
In Hilton v. Flakeboard America Limited, 418 S.C. 245, 791 S.E.2d 719 (2016), we again faced the prejudice workers’ compensation litigants may encounter when the commission orders repeated remands, and appeal must be delayed until a final decision. We stated, “Under these unique circumstances where the Commission has ordered the relitigation of the entire dispute without regard to the matters raised by the appealing party, we find that requiring Hilton to wait until the final agency decision to appeal would not provide him an adequate remedy.” 418 S.C. at 250, 791 S.E.2d at 722; see
If this Court‘s role in achieving this goal of the Workers’ Compensation Act is limited, however, the commission‘s role is primary. See James v. Anne‘s Inc., 390 S.C. 188, 201-02, 701 S.E.2d 730, 737 (2010) (stating the “‘workers’ compensation commission . . . is, in the first instance, responsible for effectuating the purposes of the workers’ compensation act by administering, enforcing, and construing its provisions in order to secure its humane objectives.‘” (quoting 100 C.J.S. Workers’ Compensation § 706 (2000))). The Workers’ Compensation Act sets forth the procedure the commission should follow to fulfill its purpose.
In most instances, therefore, a claim filed with the commission will be assigned to one commissioner who must promptly conduct a hearing and “determine the dispute in a summary manner.”
In this case, however, the commission‘s unnecessary delays and repeated remands over the almost eight years since Russell filed her change of condition claim frustrated the goals of the Workers’ Compensation Act. As we will explain, each of the remands was unnecessary—particularly the remand order on appeal—and thus contributed to the commission‘s failure to make a final decision in a timely manner.
After the first appellate panel reversed the first commissioner, the court of appeals reversed. Russell, 415 S.C. at 397, 782 S.E.2d at 754. The focus of the court of appeals was the error of requiring that only objective evidence may support the claim. See 415 S.C. at 398, 782 S.E.2d at 755 (“Russell argues the Commission erred in requiring a change of condition to be established by objective evidence. We agree.“). That was an error only in the appellate panel‘s review of the first commissioner‘s decision. In fact, as we previously explained, the first commissioner specifically relied on Russell‘s subjective
It was also completely unnecessary for the second appellate panel to remand to a third commissioner after the second commissioner reviewed the evidence and filed a second detailed order. The court of appeals’ 2016 opinion required only a new review, not a new hearing. Even before the second commissioner ruled, counsel for Wal-Mart specifically argued there should be no new hearing. In an email to the commission shortly after the court of appeals remitted the case in May 2016—nine months before the second commissioner‘s March 2017 order—counsel for Wal-Mart wrote,
Based upon the hearing notice that I have received, it appears as though this matter has been set for a de novo hearing before the single commissioner. I believe this to be in error based upon the remand from the . . . court of appeals. . . . There is nothing in the remand . . . which indicates that a new hearing should be held and that new evidence should be taken on the claim; instead, the commission is simply supposed to reconsider the existing evidence and issue new factual findings in accordance with the legal issues raised by the court of appeals. I believe that having a new hearing . . . is improper from a legal and procedural perspective.
Counsel for Wal-Mart continued, specifically raising the concern we foresaw in Hilton and upon which we now reverse,
I am surprised that this matter was not considered by the full commission and that new factual findings were not issued in accordance with the directives of the court of appeals. Any new factual findings coming from a single
commissioner will simply necessitate more appeals and more litigation. . . . I certainly don‘t see any basis for a de novo hearing or consideration of new evidence; the remand from the court of appeals simply directs the commission to reconsider the existing evidence in light of [the court‘s] legal determination.
Nevertheless, despite the fact counsel for Wal-Mart specifically asked there not be a de novo hearing, despite the fact the issue of a de novo hearing was not raised by either side after the second commissioner‘s order, despite the fact almost six years had elapsed since Russell‘s claim for a change of condition was filed, despite the existence of two detailed single commissioner orders awarding Russell additional benefits, the appellate panel remanded to a third commissioner for a third hearing, specifically requiring the very thing the party appealing to it (Wal-Mart) had specifically asked not to have—a new hearing.
In summary, Russell filed her claim for an increase in benefits due to a change of condition in 2011. In 2013, a commissioner found she proved her condition had changed for the worse. As of the writing of this opinion—nearly eight years after Russell filed her claim—Russell has not received any additional benefits, despite two commissioners finding she was entitled to them. Cf. Rose v. JJS Trucking, LLC, 411 S.C. 366, 768 S.E.2d 412, 369, 413 (Ct. App. 2015) (finding an interlocutory order not immediately appealable under the “adequate remedy” provision when the only prejudice was “to delay the payment of money” between insurance providers). If Russell is entitled to additional benefits, she was entitled to receive them many years ago. If she is not entitled to additional benefits, Wal-Mart was entitled to have her claim denied many years ago. S.C. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass‘n, 411 S.C. at 506, 768 S.E.2d at 673. The commission failed to fulfill its responsibility under the Workers’ Compensation Act to promptly decide this case without protracted litigation.
III. Conclusion
We find the commission‘s unreasonable delay in making a final decision leaves Russell without an adequate remedy on appeal from a final decision under
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and JAMES, JJ., concur.