Puniyani v. Avni Grocers

THIS
OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Case No.
2007-CP-10-0013

Virendra
Puniyani, Deceased Employee, and Rajkumari Puniyani, Respondents,

v.

Avni Grocers,
Employer, Defendants,

and
The South
Carolina Uninsured Employers' Fund, Carriers, Appellant.

Case No.
2007-CP-10-0014

Dharmendra
Chaudhari, Husband of Anita Chaudhari, Deceased, Claimant,

v.

Avni Grocers,
Employer, and The South Carolina Uninsured Employers' Fund, Carrier.

Appeal From Charleston County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-338

Heard March 2, 2010 – Filed June 29, 2010   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Latonya Dilligard Edwards, S.C. Second
Injury Fund, of Columbia, Terri Morrill Lynch, Matthew J. Story, Margaret M. Urbanic, of Charleston, for
Appellant.

Jarrel L. Wigger of N. Charleston, John S.
Nichols, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  The
South Carolina Uninsured Employers' Fund (Fund) appeals the order of the
circuit court, which reversed the decision of the South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Commission (Commission) denying benefits to Rajkumari Puniyani,
mother of deceased employee Virendra Puniyani, and remanded the case to the
Commission.  We find the order on appeal is not immediately appealable and
therefore dismiss. 

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 14, 2002, Virendra
Puniyani was killed by a co-worker while working at the Fast Point Gas
Station.  Mrs. Puniyani brought this action seeking workers' compensation
benefits.  As the Employer, Avni Grocers, did not have workers' compensation
insurance, the Fund defended the action.  The single commissioner held Mrs.
Puniyani failed to prove Avni Grocers regularly employed four or more employees
as required by section 42-1-150 of the South Carolina Code (1985) to be subject
to the jurisdiction of the Commission.  The Appellate Panel of the Commission
affirmed.  The circuit court, however, reversed and remanded the matter to the
Commission for further proceedings consistent with its order.  This appeal
followed. 

LAW/ANALYSIS

Mrs. Puniyani argues the
order of the circuit court is not immediately appealable.  We agree.

Our courts “have consistently
held that an order of the circuit court remanding a case for additional
proceedings before an administrative agency is not directly appealable.”  Montjoy
v. Asten-Hill Dryer Fabrics, 316 S.C. 52, 52, 446 S.E.2d 618, 618 (1994).  The
South Carolina Supreme Court recently reiterated that appeals from
administrative agencies may only be from final decisions.  Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, S.C. Sup. Ct.
Order dated April 8, 2010 (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 14 at 85).  It explained the
general appealability statute, section 14-3-330 of the South Carolina Code
(1976 & Supp. 2009), does not apply to appeals from administrative
agencies.  Id. at 87.  The court overruled this court's opinion Canteen
v. McLeod Regional Medical Center, 384 S.C. 617, 682 S.E.2d 504 (Ct. App.
2009) to the extent it relied on section 14-3-330 to permit the appeal of
interlocutory orders of the administrative law court or an administrative
agency.[1]  Id. 

A judgment is not final when
there is some further act that must be done by the court prior to a
determination of the rights of the parties or when the judgment determines the applicable
law while leaving open questions of fact.  Id. at 88.  "A final
judgment disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or terminates the
particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by
execution what has been determined."  Id. 

The order on appeal remands
the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.  It is not a final
judgment.  Thus, the order is not immediately appealable. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

FEW, C.J. and HUFF and
THOMAS, JJ., concur.

[1] It also overruled Oakwood Landfill, Inc. v. South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, 381 S.C. 120, 671
S.E.2d 646 (Ct. App. 2009).