The issue was addressed by the Court of Appeals in the case of Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc., Opinion No. 4930 (filed January 23, 2012).
|Post by Founding Partner Stan Lacy|
In 1996, the old contract-based system was replaced by the present notice-based system. Now, the carrier can initiate benefits and simply notify the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission that benefits have commenced. There is no need for signatures because there is no contract. The carrier now has 150 days from the date the employer is notified of the accident to investigate the claim and unilaterally suspend benefits if the carrier determines the claim is not compensable. Read all about it in South Carolina Code of Laws §42-9-260.
After the 150 day period, the Commission’s regulations control suspension and termination of benefits, which simply return us to the old system but without the contract aspect. They require compensation continue until the claimant signs a Form 17 after working 14 calendar days or the carrier files a Form 21 and obtains an order from the Commission. This is the same procedure used prior to 1996 whenever the carrier wanted to suspend or terminate benefits.
The question recently arose whether §42-9-260 acted as a statute of limitations to deny compensability. If the statute gives the carrier 150 days to unilaterally suspend compensation if the claim is deemed not compensable, is the right to raise compensability as a defense barred after 150 days?
The issue was addressed by the Court of Appeals in the case of Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc., Opinion No. 4930 (filed January 23, 2012). In Jervey, Claimant suffered sulfuric acid burns to neck, face and back. Martint immediately initiated TTD and provided medical treatment. Fifteen months later, Jervey filed a Form 50 seeking treatment for a cervical disc problem and asking the Commission to designate Dr. Donald Johnson as the authorized treating physician. Martint filed a Form 51 denying the claim was compensable. Jervey objected and argued the defense was barred by §42-9-260. Additionally, Jervey argued Martint should be barred from raising the defense by the doctrines of laches and estoppel. I’ll spare you the back and forth that went on from the hearing commissioner to the Court of Appeals. Suffice it to say, the Court held that the plain reading of the statue did not create a statute of limitations, so the issue of compensability is not barred by the statue. However, the employer/carrier can, by their actions, be estopped from denying compensability. The doctrine laches likewise can be applied.
The moral is this. While the legislature did not create a statute of limitations for raising a defense, the Commission and the Courts can utilize equitable principles to reach what they deem to be a just result.