Law Articles

In Tennessee, courts have both express and inherent authority to impose sanctions for spoliation.[i] (more…)

A Plaintiff may sue both a manufacturer and a seller of a product alleged to have caused Plaintiff’s  injury. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-28-103(a). The accrual of a products liability action occurs when the Plaintiff is aware of an injury, and when, by utilizing reasonable care, Plaintiff discovers the manufacturer of the product and identifies the particular product. See, e.g., Pivnick, Lawrence A., Tennessee Circuit Court Practice sec. 1.2, p. 28 (2011-2012 ed.), citing, e.g., Craig v. R.R. Street & Co., Inc., 794 S.W.2d 351 (Tenn. Ct. App., 1990).  (more…)

Total economic losses from October’s historic flooding in South Carolina are expected to top $2 billion. According to Aon Benfield Group Ltd., insurers preliminarily reported roughly $350 million in commercial and residential property claims, and federally insured flood and crop insurance claims are expected to crest at $150 million. With the incredible amount of damage sustained in the state and the already mounting number of claims, the atmosphere is ripe for coverage-related causation disputes and litigation involving dam failures as residents and businesses scramble to fund their recoveries. (more…)

On April 21, 2015, the North Carolina Court of Appeals made clear that a claimant must provide expert testimony to prove that there is no job for him based on his age, experience and education, even though he is otherwise capable of some work.  See Fields v. H&E Equip. Servs., L.L.C., No. COA14-1094, at *8 (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2015). This case is important because it clarifies that a claimant’s subjective assertion regarding the futility of his job search is not enough to prove ongoing disability under the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act. (more…)

Earlier this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court (SCSC) clarified its position regarding the compensability of unexplained falls. Both inNicholson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services and Barnes v. Charter 1 Realty, a claimant tripped and fell on a carpeted hallway at work. Specifically, the SCSC clarified its position regarding what qualifies as an idiopathic fall and whether an unexplained fall is compensable. While the definition of “idiopathic” could include the word “unexplained,” the two words are distinct when determining whether an injury is compensable under the Act. (more…)

For claimants who have multiple workers’ compensation claims, the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act prevents concurrent receipt of disability benefits. North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 97-34 prevents double recovery where a claimant is disabled by two injuries in the same employment.  (more…)

For claimants who have multiple workers’ compensation claims, the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act prevents concurrent receipt of disability benefits. North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 97-34 prevents double recovery where a claimant is disabled by two injuries in the same employment.  (more…)

In a financial climate where companies are not handing out raises and bonuses of all sorts are nearly obsolete, employers are trying to find ways to boost the morale of employees in inexpensive ways. One way to do that is by providing an outlet for recreational activities, such as softball games, skating nights, picnics and barbeques. In South Carolina, employers and carriers are relatively free of workers’ compensation liability for recreational activities if they comply with three guidelines: (1) the activity takes place off the employer’s premises; (2) the employee’s participation in the activity is voluntary; and (3) the employer does not derive a substantial benefit from the activity other than improvement in morale and employee health. Recently, in a case that made national news, the South Carolina Supreme Court clarified the voluntary attendance requirement of recreational activities and found that an employee, who suffered an injury while playing kickball, sustained a compensable injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act. (more…)

President Barack Obama’s recent Executive Action on immigration has stirred quite the political controversy. This recent debate brings to mind a question more employers and carriers are asking: Are illegal aliens entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, and if so, how does their immigration status impact return-to-work issues and termination of benefits? (more…)

In South Carolina workers’ compensation practice, it is common knowledge that the Employer and the Carrier control medical treatment. But what happens if a claimant is being non-compliant with the treating physicians? What happens if the claimant is missing scheduled appointments? A complete understanding of S.C. Code Ann. Sections 42-15-60 and 42-15-80 will assist in maintaining control over the medical treatment in a claim. (more…)

On December 16, 2014, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued an informative decision in Tedder v. A & K Enterprises, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 1280. The case addressed the proper method of calculating the average weekly wages for temporary employees. (more…)