Sanchez v. Cold Creek Nurseries

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

Isidro Osvando
Sanchez, Employee, Respondent,

v.

Cold Creek
Nurseries, Inc., Employer; Accident Insurance Company, Inc., Carrier; and the
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund, Defendants,

of whom Cold
Creek Nurseries, Inc.; and the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Uninsured
Employers' Fund are Respondents,

and Accident
Insurance Company, Inc. is Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-458

Heard September 14, 2011 – Filed October
13, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Clarke W. McCants, III, of Aiken, for
Appellant.

Mark R. Calhoun, of Lexington; Patrick M.
Teague, of Columbia; and Amy V. Cofield, of Lexington, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In
this case brought pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), Accident
Insurance Company, Inc. (Carrier) appeals a circuit court decision awarding
benefits to Isidro Osvando Sanchez.  Carrier argues the circuit court erred in
(1) affirming the decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation
Commission (the Appellate Panel) that Sanchez's injuries arose out of and in
the course of his employment[1] and (2) reversing the Appellate Panel's finding Carrier's workers' compensation
insurance policy did not cover the accident.  We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to
whether the circuit court erred in affirming the finding Sanchez's injuries
arose out of and in the course of his employment: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160(A) (Supp. 2006) (providing a claimant is entitled to workers'
compensation benefits if he sustains an "injury by accident arising
out of and in the course of employment"); Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc., 386 S.C. 534, 540, 689 S.E.2d 615, 618 (2010)
("An appellate court can reverse or modify the Commission's decision if it
is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole
record. . . .  [However, t]his Court must
affirm the findings of fact made by the [Appellate Panel] if they are supported
by substantial evidence." (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)); Hall, 376 S.C. at 350, 656 S.E.2d at 759 ("An accident arises out of employment when the employment
is a contributing proximate cause of the accident. . . . 
[I]f the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work
and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole
situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the
employment, then it arises out of the employment." (alteration in
original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 356-57, 656 S.E.2d at 762 ("An injury occurs in the
course of employment when it occurs within the period of employment at a place
where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties and while
fulfilling those duties or engaged in something incidental thereto.  An employee
need not be in the actual performance of the duties for which he was expressly
employed in order for his injury to be in the course of employment.  It is
sufficient if the employee is engaged in a pursuit or undertaking consistent
with his contract of hire and which in some logical manner pertains to or is
incidental to his employment.  An act outside an employee's regular duties
which is undertaken in good faith to advance the employer's interest, whether
or not the employee's own assigned work is thereby furthered, is within the
course of employment." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2.  As to
whether the circuit court erred in reversing
the Appellate Panel's finding Carrier's workers' compensation insurance policy
did not cover the accident: M & M Corp. of S.C.
v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 390 S.C. 255,
259, 701 S.E.2d 33, 35 (2010) (stating insurance policies are construed using
the general rules of contract interpretation and in favor of coverage); Patterson
v. Courtenay Mfg. Co., 196 S.C. 515, 527-28, 14 S.E.2d 16, 21 (1941) (explaining
that if an employee was entitled to compensation and covered by the plain terms
of the policy, the carrier is liable for the employee's benefits).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] Carrier maintains this issue is jurisdictional and
thus is reviewed de novo.  Yet in workers' compensation cases, whether an
injury arose out of and in the course of an employee's employment is not a
jurisdictional question; rather, the question addresses compensability and is
reviewed under the substantial evidence or legal error standard.  See Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 346, 656 S.E.2d 753, 757
(Ct. App. 2007) ("Does substantial evidence
support the factual finding that Hall's injury arose out of and in the course
of his employment, concomitantly satisfying the legal standard for compensability
under section 42-1-160 of the South Carolina Code of Laws?"). 
Whether a claimant is an employee or independent contractor is the
jurisdictional question.  Paschal v. Price, 392 S.C. 128, 132, 708 S.E.2d 771, 773 (2011).