Chaudari 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 Employees, and Rajkumari Puniyani, Claimant,

v.

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

Case
No.:2007-CP-10-0014

Dharmendra
Chaudhari, Husband of Anita Chaudhari, Respondent,

v.

Avni Grocers,
Employer, Defendant,

and

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

Appeal From Charleston County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-316

Heard March 2, 2010 – Filed June 21, 2010

APPEAL DISMISSED

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

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

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 Dharmendra Chaudhari, husband of
deceased employee Anita Chaudhari 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, Anita
Chaudhari was killed by a co-worker while working at the Fast Point Gas
Station.  Mr. Chaudhari 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 Mr.
Chaudhari 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

Mr. Chaudhari 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).