Pellitteri v. Pellitteri Tile

THIS OPINION HAS
NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Carmen
Pellitteri, Employee, Respondent,

v.

Pellitteri
Tile, Employer, and South Carolina Property and Casualty Guaranty Company,
Carrier, Defendants,

Of whom South
Carolina Property and Casualty Guaranty Company is Appellant.

Appeal from Charleston County

 Mikell R. Scarborough, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-006

Submitted December 1, 2007 – Filed January
2, 2008   

AFFIRMED

F. Reid Warder, Jr. and Jason A. Williams, both of Charleston, for Appellant

Malcolm M. Crosland, Jr., of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In
this workers’ compensation case, South Carolina Property and Casualty Insurance
Guaranty Association appeals the award of temporary total disability benefits
and reimbursement for prior medical expenses to Carmen Pellitteri.  We affirm. [1]

FACTS

On January 26, 2002, Pellitteri sustained an injury to
his left leg arising out of his employment as a tile installer for Pellitteri
Tile.  As a result of his injury, Pelliteri underwent surgery on March 8, 2002.
 During his recovery, Pelliteri was unable to install tile; but he was able to
evaluate potential jobs and provide estimates.  Pellitteri injured his right
leg on April 1, 2002, while providing an estimate.  Pellitteri sought medical
benefits and reimbursement for past due medical expenses relating to his right leg
injury.  South Carolina
Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (Guaranty Association) denied Pelliteri’s
claim, arguing the claim was barred by an agreement and release entered into
between Pellitteri, Pellitteri Tile, and Legion Insurance Company on February
14, 2003.  

After a hearing on November 3, 2004, the single
commissioner issued an order finding Pellitteri sustained a compensable injury
to his right leg.  The commissioner further found the release did not bar
Pellitteri’s claim involving his right leg.[2]  The commissioner concluded the release “covered only those injuries related to
the Claimant’s left leg injury which occurred on January 26, 2002.”  Guaranty
Association appealed to the appellate panel. The appellate panel affirmed the
single commissioner’s findings.  Guaranty Association then sought judicial
review in the circuit court.  The circuit court affirmed the order of the full
commission in its entirety.  Guaranty Association appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Guaranty Association asserts the release barred Pellitteri from receiving benefits under the South Carolina Workers’
Compensation Act for his right knee injury.  We disagree.

The release provides Pellitteri sustained injuries on
January 26, 2002, and would receive compensation in the amount of $50,000.00.  The
agreement further provides the sum is:

 [I]n full and
final settlement and satisfaction for any and all claims for further
compensation and medical [sic] due as the result of any injury or injuries,
reported or unreported, known or unknown, while an employee of the employer,
including, but not limited to all claims for permanent and temporary, total and
partial disability, functional and specific loss, disfigurement, change of
condition, death and funeral benefits, loss of function or impairment of any
scheduled or non-scheduled members of the body, any claims of psychological or
emotional injury or impairment, and past or future medical expenses as the
result of the injury described herein . . . .

A release is a contract and rules of contract should be
used to determine what the parties intended.  Ecclesiastes Production
Ministries v. Outparcel Associates, LLC, 374 S.C. 483, 497, 649 S.E.2d 494,
501 (Ct. App. 2007).  The construction of a contract is a question of law for
the court.  Auten v. Snipes, 370 S.C. 664, 669-70, 636 S.E.2d 644, 647 (Ct. App. 2006).  In construing a contract, the courts function is to interpret the contracts
lawful meaning, discover the intention of the parties as provided within the contract,
and give effect to the parties’ intention.  Id.  When a contract is
clear and unequivocal, its meaning must be determined by its content alone.  State
v. Cochran, 358 S.C. 24, 27, 594 S.E.2d 844, 845 (2004).

Here, the meaning of the release is plain.  The release
provides that it is a “full and final settlement” of all claims “as the result
of the injury described herein.”  The only injury described within the release
relates to Pellitteri’s left leg.  Page one of the release describes
Pellitteri’s injury as having occurred on January 26, 2002.  In addition, the
Workers’ Compensation file number listed in the release is 0201583, the file
number assigned to Pellitteri’s claim for his left leg injury.  Furthermore,
the third page of the release provides that the “combined effect of
[Pellitteri’s] prior impairment and the injury or injuries described herein was
such to produce Eighteen percent (18%) permanent functional impairment of
[Pellitteri’s] left leg. . . .” (emphasis added).  The language of the
release does not mention an injury to Pellitteri’s right leg, the file number
assigned to the claim for Pellitteri’s right leg injury, or the date the right
leg injury took place.  The parties clearly could have included language in the
release barring claims for Pellitteri’s right leg injury had that been their
intent as the release was dated after Pellitteri injured his right leg.  

Guaranty Association argues broad language in the
release stating the release is final settlement “for any and all claims for
further compensation and medical [sic] due as the result of any injury or
injuries, reported or unreported, known or unknown, while an employee of the
employer” bars Pellitteri from recovery for all injuries prior to the date of
approval of the release.  The release, however, also includes specific language
limiting its effect to “the injury or injuries described herein.”  Reading the
release as a whole, it is clearly limited to claims relating to Pellitteri’s
left leg injury.  See Campbell v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 301 S.C.
448, 452, 392 S.E.2d 477, 480 (Ct. App. 1990) (stating a release must be read
as a whole); Thomas-McCain, Inc. v. Siter, 268 S.C. 193, 197, 232 S.E.2d
728, 729 (1977) (“Where the agreement in question is a written contract, the
parties’ intention must be gathered from the contents of the entire agreement
and not from any particular clause thereof.”).   

Guaranty
Association asserts that even if the release is limited to Pellitteri’s left
leg injury, Pellitteri’s right leg injury is barred because it resulted from
the left leg injury.  The commissioner, however, found Pellitteri’s right leg
injury resulted from his work as a tile installer that required Pellitteri to
perform significant bending, stooping, and kneeling.  Substantial evidence
supports the commissioner’s finding.  By letter of September 18, 2002,
Pellitteri’s physician opined “I do not believe Mr. Pellitteri’s right knee
meniscus tear is a result of overuse due to his left knee injury but more the
overuse due to his occupation, which requires a significant amount of bending,
stooping and kneeling . . . .”  We therefore affirm the commissioner’s
finding.  See Howell v. Pacific
Columbia Mills, 291 S.C. 469,
471, 354 S.E.2d 384, 385 (1987) (“A decision of the Worker's Compensation
Commission will not be overturned by a reviewing court unless it is clearly
unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.”).

CONCLUSION

For
the reasons stated above, we hold Pellitteri sustained a compensable injury to
his right leg, and such injury is not barred by the release.

AFFIRMED.

HUFF AND PIEPER, JJ. and GOOLSBY, A.J., concur. 

[1]  We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.

[2] The commissioner made several additional findings of
fact.  One such finding, regarding Pellitteri’s average weekly wage, was
appealed by both parties to the appellate panel.  The issue, however, is not
pertinent to this appeal.