Shiver v. Palmetto Health Richland

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

Gertrude Shiver, Employee, Appellant,

v.

Palmetto Health Richland, Employer, Palmetto Health
Trust, Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002486

Appeal From Richland County
Tanya A. Gee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-079
Submitted December 1, 2016 – Filed February 15, 2017

AFFIRMED

Gertrude Shiver, of Gadsden, pro se.

F. Earl Ellis, Jr., Kirby Darr Shealy, III, and Lyndey Ritz
Zwingelberg, all of Adams and Reese LLP, of Columbia,
for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Gertrude Shiver appeals the circuit court's order, which affirmed
the decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission
(the Appellate Panel). On appeal, Shiver argues the circuit court erred in affirming
the Appellate Panel's decision not to impose sanctions on Palmetto Health
Richland and Palmetto Health Trust (collectively, Palmetto Health) for (1)
withholding temporary total disability benefits and (2) failing to pay authorized
medical bills and treatment. We affirm.1

1. We find the circuit court did not err in affirming the Appellate Panel's decision
not to impose sanctions on Palmetto Health for withholding temporary total
disability benefits. "[T]his [c]ourt's review is limited to deciding whether the
Appellate Panel's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled
by some error of law." Bass v. Isochem, 365 S.C. 454, 467, 617 S.E.2d 369, 376
(Ct. App. 2005). Shiver correctly asserts that subsection 42-9-260(G) imposes
sanctions when an employer fails to comply with section 42-9-260. See S.C. Code
Ann. § 42-9-260(G) (2015) ("Failure to comply with this section shall result in a
twenty-five percent penalty imposed upon the carrier or employer computed on the
amount of benefits withheld in violation of this section . . . ."). Palmetto Health
did not immediately begin paying temporary total disability benefits because the
injury was not admitted; however, the plain language of the statute indicates an
employer is not required to immediately begin paying benefits when an employee
is injured. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-260(A) ("When an employee has been out
of work due to a reported work-related injury or occupational disease for eight
days, an employer may start temporary disability payments immediately . . . ."
(emphasis added)); Bass, 365 S.C. at 470, 617 S.E.2d at 377 ("The legislature's
intent should be ascertained primarily from the plain language of the statute."). At
the 2007 hearing, Palmetto Health did not contest the payment of temporary total
disability benefits. Although there was a delay in Palmetto Health's payment,
Palmetto Health ultimately paid Shiver temporary total disability benefits in 2014.
The circuit court reasoned, and we agree, the delay resulted from the appeal of the
single commissioner's 2007 order and the related confusion as to whether the
appeal stayed the payment of benefits. Further, as the circuit court noted, the 2007
order did not explicitly require Palmetto Health to pay benefits. Because Shiver
failed to show Palmetto Health did not comply with section 42-9-260, we affirm
the circuit court's order affirming the Appellate Panel's decision that sanctions
were not warranted.

2. We find Shiver's argument that the circuit court erred in affirming the Appellate
Panel's decision not to impose sanctions on Palmetto Health for not paying
authorized medical bills and treatment is unpreserved. See Wigfall v. Tideland

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Utils., 354 S.C. 100, 103, 580 S.E.2d 100, 101 (2003) (finding an issue
unpreserved when the circuit court did not rule on the issue and appellant did not
file a Rule 59(e) motion).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.