Davis v. S.C. Dep't of Corr.

1

Gena Cain Davis, Claimant, Respondent, v. S.C. Department of Corrections, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier, Petitioners.

No. 28224

Appellate Case No. 2022-000519

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 31, 2024

Heard January 10, 2024

On writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Commission

Kirsten Leslie Barr, of Trask & Howell, L.L.C. of Mt. Pleasant, for Petitioners.

Stephen Benjamin Samuels, of Samuels Reynolds Law Firm, LLC of Columbia, for Respondent.

OPINION

BEATTY, CHIEF JUSTICE

In this workers' compensation case, the employer challenged the single commissioner's order that allowed the claimant to withdraw her Form 50 request for a hearing without prejudice and dismissed the employer's Form 21 request to stop the payment of temporary compensation. A three-member panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission ("Appellate Panel") upheld the ruling as to the Form 21, but reversed the ruling on the Form 50 as to prejudice after finding the single commissioner lacked jurisdiction to rule on prejudice, and it returned the case to the Commission's files. The claimant appealed, and the court of appeals vacated the Appellate Panel's decision in part, holding the single commissioner's ruling on the Form 50 was interlocutory and not immediately reviewable by the Appellate Panel, and it remanded the case to the Commission. Davis v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., Op. No. 2022-UP-081, 2022 WL 551972 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Feb. 23, 2022). We granted the employer's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court of appeals and to clarify the statutory review process for workers' compensation claims.^[1] We affirm as modified.

I. FACTS

The claimant, Gena Cain Davis ("Davis"), filed a Form 50 notice of a claim in July 2016, alleging she sustained injuries to her legs and back in a slip-and-fall accident that occurred on July 14, 2016 during the course and scope of her employment as a correctional officer with the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"). In October 2016, Davis submitted a Form 50 request for a hearing on her claim, in which she additionally alleged she sustained the aggravation of a pre-existing condition of deep vein thrombosis as a result of her accident.^[2]

A hearing date was set for February 2017, but the hearing was cancelled after Davis withdrew her Form 50 request. In April 2017, SCDC suspended the payment of temporary disability compensation and filed a Form 21 requesting a hearing on its accompanying request to stop compensation. Also, in April 2017, Davis filed a second Form 50 request for a hearing on her claim. A hearing was initially scheduled for the parties in July 2017, but it was postponed at the request of SCDC and its carrier^[3] for additional time to depose a witness.

The parties obtained a new hearing date of October 24, 2017 to consider Davis's claim and SCDC's Form 21 stop-payment request. A formal hearing never occurred, however, because the single commissioner allowed Davis to withdraw her Form 50 hearing request and dismissed SCDC's Form 21 request at an off-the-record, prehearing conference with the parties that occurred on the date of the scheduled hearing, October 24.

This appeal concerns SCDC's dispute over the written order subsequently signed by the single commissioner on November 14, 2017 memorializing his rulings. The order of the single commissioner indicated that, after a prehearing conference: (1) Davis "was allowed to withdraw the Form 50 without prejudice"; (2) SCDC's Form 21 hearing request for a stop-payment was dismissed on the ground it was not properly before the single commissioner, as SCDC had already suspended temporary compensation and was not current in its payments; (3) the scheduled hearing was cancelled; and (4) Davis's "claim [was] returned to the Commission's general files."

SCDC's dispute centered on its objection to the characterization of the Form 50 withdrawal as being "without prejudice." Notably, before the single commissioner filed the order, the parties discussed the details of the order, including the issue of prejudice, in a series of email exchanges. Davis had initially been asked to prepare a proposed order regarding the Form 21 and, in a follow-up email, Davis had sought clarification from the single commissioner about the status of her Form 50 after becoming aware that SCDC was planning to seek the dismissal of Davis's entire claim, as opposed to just the Form 50 hearing request. SCDC argues that the claim is procedurally viable but legally dead as a result of the second withdrawal of the Form 50.

SCDC vehemently objected to the withdrawal of the Form 50 being characterized as "without prejudice" and argued the Form 50 withdrawal should, instead, be deemed a "voluntary" dismissal by Davis of her claim because it was the second time she had withdrawn her Form 50, and the withdrawal was being done solely for purposes of delay. SCDC relied on an agency regulation for its assertion in this regard. See S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-609(C) (2012) ("Withdrawing a Form 50 or Form 52 the second time without good cause may operate as a voluntary dismissal of the claim when the form is withdrawn by a claimant who has once withdrawn a Form 50 or Form 52 based on the same set of facts, and, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the form is withdrawn merely for the purpose of delay." (emphasis added)).

Davis, in turn, stated in the email exchanges that, after SCDC indicated during the prehearing conference that it planned to contest her additional medical treatment, she had sought to withdraw her hearing request solely to obtain additional proof to address SCDC's concerns about her treatment that arose based on SCDC's interpretation of certain case law regarding the burden of proof. Davis maintained she was not dismissing her claim, all parties were aware of this point, and her withdrawal of the Form 50 was not for the improper purpose of causing a delay.

The single commissioner responded, through his staff, that it was his understanding Davis had asked to withdraw the Form 50 without prejudice during the prehearing conference, "and with it being within his discretion to do so, [he] allowed [Davis] to do that." The single commissioner rejected SCDC's arguments for removing the "without prejudice" designation and issued the order memorializing his decision to allow Davis to withdraw her Form 50 without prejudice and to dismiss SCDC's Form 21.

SCDC sought review by the Commission, and the matter was heard by the Appellate Panel. At the hearing on the matter SCDC argued, in relevant part, that the Form 50 withdrawal should not be designated "without prejudice" because the question was not discussed at the prehearing conference, so the single commissioner lacked the "authority" or "jurisdiction" to issue the challenged order, and the order was impermissibly vague because it did not specifically reference whether there was "good cause" to allow the Form 50 withdrawal to be made without prejudice. SCDC also summarily asserted Davis's explanation that she was seeking additional medical proof was not good cause for the withdrawal of her hearing request.

Davis, in contrast, maintained she expressly provided an explanation of her necessity for withdrawing her Form 50 at the prehearing conference, it was clear to everyone present that she was withdrawing her hearing request, not her claim, and she understood it to be without prejudice. Davis asserted SCDC did not argue during the prehearing conference that the harsher penalty of prejudice should apply or that the second withdrawal of her Form 50 should be treated, instead, as a voluntary dismissal. Davis contended that, if SCDC wanted the single commissioner to treat the withdrawal as a voluntary dismissal, it was incumbent upon SCDC to assert to the single commissioner that her reason for the withdrawal was not good cause and move for a dismissal. Davis argued that, under the applicable regulation, whether a withdrawal is being made merely for purposes of delay is to be determined within the discretion of the single commissioner, but SCDC remained silent on this point until the proposed order was prepared, and when the issue was finally raised by SCDC, the single commissioner rejected SCDC's contention. Davis maintained the single commissioner did not lose his authority to issue a written order memorializing his rulings, as the single commissioner would not lose his authority until there was an order issued returning the case to the Commission's general files or the order was appealed after fourteen days, pursuant to the statutory review process.

The Appellate Panel affirmed the single commissioner's ruling as to the Form 21 and reversed the ruling as to the Form 50. The Appellate Panel found the single commissioner correctly ruled the Form 21 request was not properly before the Commission. As to the Form 50, the Appellate Panel noted SCDC was arguing that the second Form 50 withdrawal operated as an adjudication on the merits and was tantamount to a voluntary dismissal. The Appellate Panel found the single commissioner erred as a matter of law in concluding Davis was allowed to withdraw her Form 50 without prejudice. The Appellate Panel found the issues of whether there was "good cause" to withdraw the Form 50 for a second time or whether it was made solely for purposes of delay were not raised to the single commissioner during the prehearing conference, and the single commissioner lost "jurisdiction" over Davis's claim after what it called Davis's "voluntary" withdrawal of her Form 50, the dismissal of the Form 21, and the cancellation of the hearing. The Appellate Panel further concluded the issue of prejudice...