Stutts v. Harper James Finucan, Inc.

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

Jessie Stutts, Respondent,

v.

Harper James Finucan, Inc., Employer, and Auto Owner’s Insurance Co., Carrier, Appellants.

Appeal From Charleston County

 Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-300

Submitted June 1, 2007 – Filed June 8,
2007

REVERSED

Kirsten L. Barr and Roy A. Howell, III, both of Mt. Pleasant, for Appellants.

Cameron Marshall and Paul N. Uricchio, III, both of Charleston,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Harper
Finucan, Inc., and Auto Workers Insurance appeal a circuit court order
reversing the final decision and order of the Appellate Panel of the Workers’
Compensation Commission.  Appellants argue the circuit court disregarded the
proper standard of review by making its own findings of fact and awarding
benefits to Jessie Stutts.  We reverse.[1]

FACTS

Stutts
began working for Happy Finucan, owner of Harper Finucan, Inc., as a plumber in
March 2001.  Stutts was an hourly employee, but was not paid for his travel
time to or from work.  Finucan had initially agreed to provide Stutts with a
work vehicle, but this never happened.  Instead, Stutts bought a truck himself to
travel to and from work.  Stutts had his own insurance policy on his truck, was
free to use the truck as he chose, and was responsible for all repairs on his
truck.  However, Finucan or his subordinates routinely paid to fill up Stutts’
gas tank, usually once but sometimes twice in a week. 

On the morning of September 12, 2002, Stutts left his truck at
Rumph’s Garage for repairs to the brakes. Finucan agreed to pay for these
repairs because Stutts could not afford them.  That afternoon after work,
Stutts picked up his truck and headed home.  On the way home, Stutts rear-ended
a tractor-trailor and sustained injuries. 

After the
accident, Stutts filed a claim for workers’ compensation.  The single commissioner
determined that Stutts’ injury was compensable under the provision of
transportation exception to the “going and coming rule.”  The Appellate Panel
reversed, finding Stutts’ accident was unrelated to his employment and his
injury did not “occur during the course and scope of his employment.”  Further,
the Appellate Panel concluded that the exceptions to the “going and coming
rule” did not apply to this case because  Finucan did not provide Stutts’
transportation, did not pay for Stutts’ travel time, and did not charge him
with any special errand after work that day. 

Stutts
appealed to the circuit court.  The circuit court reversed and reinstated the
decision of the single commissioner.  This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF
REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act
establishes the “substantial evidence” standard for judicial review of
decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.  Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276
S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981).  The findings of the Workers’ Compensation
Commission will not be set aside if the findings are supported by substantial
evidence and are not controlled by legal error.  Gray v. Club Group, Ltd.,
339 S.C. 173, 528 S.E.2d 435 (Ct. App. 2000).  Substantial evidence is evidence
that, when viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach
the conclusion the commission reached. Lockridge v. Santens, 344 S.C.
511, 544 S.E.2d 842 (Ct. App. 2001).  The appellate court may not substitute
its judgment for that of the commission as to the weight of the evidence on
questions of fact.  Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund,
363 S.C. 612, 611 S.E.2d 297 (Ct. App. 2005).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Finucan and Auto Workers appeal the circuit court order awarding
benefits to Stutts, arguing the circuit court disregarded the proper standard
of review by making its own findings of fact.  We agree. 

Injuries sustained while traveling to and
from work are generally not compensable under workers’ compensation law.[2]  Eadie v. H.A. Sack Company, 322 S.C. 164, 168, 470 S.E.2d 397, 399 (Ct.
App 1996).  However, South Carolina recognizes five
exceptions to this rule: 1) if the
employer provides the means of transportation or pays travel time; 2) if the
employee performs duties during his commute; 3) if the way used is inherently
dangerous; 4) if the place where the injury occurs is in such close proximity
to the workplace that it is brought within the scope of employment; and
5) if the injury occurs while the employee is on a special errand for the
employer.  Id. 168-69, 400. 

The first exception is the
only one at issue here.  The Appellate Panel found this exception
did not apply because the “Employer did not provide [Stutts] a means of
transportation by providing work tools, paying of one tank of gas each week,
and paying for repairs at Rumph’s . . . .  The evidence establishes the [Stutts]
was driving his own vehicle.”  However, the circuit court, relying on Eadie
v. H.A. Sack Co., found that these facts clearly constituted “provision of
transportation” by the employer.  322 S.C. 164, 470 S.E.2d 397 (Ct. App. 1996).
 Thus, the circuit court held that Stutts’ trip home qualified as an exception
to the “going and coming rule” and thereby brought Stutts within the benefits
of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Whether the circumstances of this case constitute the provision of
transportation is a question of fact, subject to the substantial evidence
standard of review.  Eadie v. H.A. Sack Co., 322 S.C. 164, 470 S.E.2d
397 (Ct. App. 1996).  Thus, if substantial evidence supports the Appellate
Panel’s finding, we must affirm.

In this case, Stutts purchased his own vehicle, paid his own
insurance and taxes on the vehicle, and was not paid any wage while traveling
to and from work.  Substantial evidence therefore supported the Appellate
Panel’s determination that Finucan did not provide transportation to Stutts.

Further, we do not believe Eadie supports
reversal of the Appellate Panel’s finding of fact.  In Eadie, the
employer admitted his provision of transportation to the employee, stating:
“the bottom line is that the reimbursement of Eadie’s mileage in his personal
vehicle at a rate of twenty-two cents per mile is the equivalent of providing a
company vehicle.”  Eadie, 322 at 170, 470 S.E.2d at 400 (Ct. App.
1996).  The
Appellate Panel in Eadie found there was a provision of transportation,
and therefore claimant was entitled to benefits.  Thus, consistent with the
scope of review, the court of appeals found substantial evidence supported the
Appellate Panel’s decision and affirmed the award.

In this case, however, the Appellate Panel found
Finucan did not provide transportation to Stutts.  Like in Eadie, there
is substantial evidence to support that finding, and the circuit court therefore
erred in reversing the Appellate Panel.  Accordingly, the circuit court’s award
of benefits is

REVERSED.

HEARN,
C.J., and KITTREDGE, J., and CURETON, A.J.

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

[2] This is often referred to
as the “going and coming rule.”