Shelia Hutchins v. Security Group, Inc.

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

Shelia Hutchins, Employee, Appellant,

v.

Security Group, Inc., Employer, and Hartford Accident
and Indemnity Co., Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000517

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-255
Submitted June 1, 2023 – Filed June 28, 2023

AFFIRMED

Shelia Hutchins, pro se.

Tracy Welsh Tiddy, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley,
P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Shelia Hutchins appeals a decision by the Appellate Panel of the
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) to uphold
the grant of a motion by Security Group, Inc., and Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Co. (collectively Respondents) to compel enforcement of two settlement
agreements. On appeal, Hutchins argues she was unable to enter into the
agreements because she was under the care of a psychiatrist, her lawyer did not act
in her best interest, and the proceedings were tainted by numerous errors. We
affirm.

Contrary to Hutchins's argument on appeal, a voluntary settlement in a workers'
compensation case no longer requires approval by the South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Commission (the Commission) to be enforceable if each party to the
agreement is represented by an attorney. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-390 (2015)
(requiring only that the employer must file a copy of the settlement agreement with
the Commission if each party is represented by an attorney); Ex parte Horne, 437
S.C. 218, 223, 877 S.E.2d 798, 801 (Ct. App. 2022) ("The relevant difference
between the pre-amendment version of the statute and the present one is that the
current version no longer requires the Commission's approval of a settlement
agreement when both parties are represented by counsel."); id. (noting the current
version of section 42-9-390 "simply requires the employer to file a copy of the
settlement agreement with the Commission"). Here Hutchins was represented by
counsel during the mediation that resulted in the settlement agreements, and she
does not deny Respondents filed copies of the settlement agreements with the
Commission.

Hutchins also argues the terms of the settlement agreements were unfair to her
because of her vulnerable mental state during mediation, allegedly deficient
representation she received from her attorneys in negotiating the agreements, and
various procedural irregularities. Hutchins, however, has not shown the
compensation she was to receive under either of the agreements or the time or
manner of payment was not in accordance with any provision in the South Carolina
Workers' Compensation Act. See § 42-9-390 ("Nothing contained in this chapter
may be construed so as to prevent settlements made by and between an employee
and employer as long as the amount of compensation and the time and manner of
payment are in accordance with the provisions of [the South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Act].").

Finally, we acknowledge that in Mackey v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Co., 280 S.C.
265, 312 S.E.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1984), a case decided before the current version of
section 42-9-390 took effect, this court held the requirement in the prior version of
section 42-9-390 that a settlement agreement in a workers' compensation case be in
writing "necessarily anticipates that the agreement will also be signed by the
parties and that it will not be binding until they have done so." 280 S.C. at 271,
312 S.E.2d at 568. Whether or not this requirement still applies to the current
version of section 42-9-390, the record clearly shows the agreements were signed
by Respondents' counsel, the attorney who represented Hutchins during the
mediation, and Hutchins herself; therefore, this prerequisite to enforcement of the
settlement agreements was satisfied as well.

Based on foregoing, we affirm the Appellate Panel's decision to enforce the
settlement agreements.

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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