Collins v. SC Dept. of Education

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

Veronica
Collins, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department
of Education-Transportation Division and State Accident Fund, Appellants.

Appeal from Charleston County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-154

Heard January 24, 2012 – Filed March 7,
2012 

AFFIRMED

Cynthia Burns Polk, of Columbia, and Margaret
M. Urbanic, of Charleston, for Appellants.

Thomas M. White, of Goose Creek, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this Workers' Compensation case, Appellants, South
Carolina Department of Education-Transportation Division (Employer) and State
Accident Fund (Carrier), seek review of the circuit court's order affirming the
Workers' Compensation Commission's decision regarding the provision and payment
of home healthcare services for Respondent Veronica Collins. 

On appeal, Appellants argue
the circuit court erred in: (1) finding Collins's refusal to enter an assisted
living facility was not unreasonable; and (2) ordering Appellants to compensate
Collins's friend and care-provider, Sharon Bryant, $400 per week for providing
in-home services to Collins. 

1.     Refusal to Enter Assisted
Living

Collins suffers from incomplete
paraplegia and incontinence following work-related spinal trauma and subsequent
lumbar spine surgery.  On May 25, 2006, May 22, 2007, and July 20, 2007, Dr. Joseph
Nolan, Collins's primary physician, prescribed 24-hour, home-based care to provide
Collins assistance with the activities of daily living.  On September 26, 2007,
Appellants responded by offering to place Collins in an assisted living
facility.  Collins, who is the sole caregiver for her two minor children,
refused to enter the facility, testifying that moving would do
"irreparable damage" to her children and would require her to place
them in foster care.  Appellants contend it was "unreasonable" for Collins
to refuse to move into the facility and stated it is Carrier's right to direct
medical care. 

Appellants are required to
provide lifetime care for Collins, who is totally and permanently disabled:

In
cases in which total and permanent disability results, reasonable
and necessary nursing services, medicines, prosthetic devices, sick travel,
medical, hospital, and other treatment or care shall be paid during the life of
the injured employee, without regard to any limitation in this title including
the maximum compensation limit.

S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-60(C)
(Supp. 2011) (emphases added).  Furthermore, the Commission is authorized to
determine whether "circumstances justify" the employee's refusal to
submit to medical services directed by an employer.  S.C. Code Ann. §
42-15-80(A) (Supp. 2011).

We find substantial evidence
supports the circuit court's finding that Collins was not unreasonable in
refusing to move into an assisted living facility.  Importantly, we note that
Collins's physician repeatedly prescribed in-home services, and as the
circuit court noted, no doctor recommended that Collins go into an assisted
living facility.  To the contrary, Dr. Nolan specifically stated, on May 22, 2007 and July 20, 2007, that Bryant should continue providing services to
Collins.  Substantial evidence supports the Commission's determination that Collins
"did not unreasonably refuse medical treatment in not going into an
assisted living facility home."  Accordingly, the circuit court properly
upheld the Commission's determination that Collins's refusal to enter an
assisted living facility was not unreasonable.

2.     Payment for In-home
Services

Despite Dr. Nolan's May 25, 2006
order for 24-hour, in-home services, Appellants provided no in-home
assistance.  Instead, Collins's friend, Sharon Bryant, moved in with Collins
and provided 24-hour assistance with driving, cooking, shopping, cleaning,
bathing, lifting, taking medication, and dressing.  On May 22, 2007, Dr. Nolan wrote a letter summarizing
Collins's medical status and reiterated the need for 24-hour, in-home
assistance:

Ms.
Collins has a significant impairment of mobility and needs a wheelchair for
ambulation.  She has problems with balance and experiences regular urinary
incontinence.  She has a significant history of falls.  Ms. Collins is unable
to perform her activities of daily living, and requires 24 hour assistance.

Ms.
Sharon Bryant has been assisting Ms. Collins and should continue to do so.  It
is necessary that Ms. Collins have a caregiver at home in order to keep her
from being situated in an assisted living facility.

On July 20, 2007, Dr. Nolan
documented Collins's deteriorating condition and stated:

Due to
her profound physical limitations, Ms. Collins requires a motorized wheelchair
for mobility.  . . .  Ms. Collins also requires home health care for assistance
with her personal need[s] and activities of daily living.  Ms. Sharon Bryant
has been providing this care for Ms. Collins and should continue to do so.

All of
the above are medically necessary for Ms. Collins's long-term care.

At the hearing before the
single Commissioner on April 7, 2008, Collins testified that since her spinal
fusion surgery in December 2004, no one—other than Sharon Bryant—had provided
any home care services.

On appeal, Carrier contends there
was no evidence before the court regarding an appropriate rate of compensation
for a home healthcare worker.  The record, however, includes evidence that an
assisted living facility would cost $3,100 per month.  We find Carrier's
argument to be without merit, and we affirm the circuit court's order requiring
Appellants to compensate Bryant, at a rate of $400 per week, for providing
24-hour, in-home care from May 25, 2006, the date Dr. Nolan first ordered such
care, through June 4, 2008. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing
reasons, the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.