Palmer v. Henderson

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

Cheryl Vines
Palmer and Carlton Palmer, Appellants,

v.

Crystal
Henderson, Respondent.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-133

Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 5,
2009   

AFFIRMED

William H. Ehlies, II, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Stanley T.
Case, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Cheryl
and Carlton Palmer appeal the circuit court’s order of dismissal of their
causes of actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, against Crystal Henderson
following a finding the Palmers’ claims were barred by the exclusivity
provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. §
42-5-10 (1985) (stating a co-employee who negligently injures another employee
while in the scope of employment is immune under the Act and cannot be held
personally liable); Edens v. Bellini, 359 S.C. 433, 441-42, 597 S.E.2d
863, 867-68 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding the Act is the exclusive remedy for
an employee’s work-related accident or injury, and the exclusivity provision
precludes an employee from maintaining a tort action against an employer where
the employee sustains a work-related injury); Strickland v. Galloway,
348 S.C. 644, 647, 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining the immunity
is conferred not only on the direct employer, but also on co-employees).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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