Do you have insurance on your home? Do you know what it covers?
As a recent case shows, if you have homeowner’s liability insurance, you might think you are covered for more situations than you actually are. It’s always a good idea to review your policy from time to time so that you understand exactly what is – and is not – covered.
South Carolina law limits both the time that an injured worker has to give notice of a work-related injury and the time for filing a claim with the workers’ compensation commission, seeking to enforce his or her right to medical care, temporary or permanent disability benefits, and other related matters.
Pursuant to S.C. Code § 42-15-20(a), the employee is to give notice “immediately… or as soon thereafter as practicable.” S.C. Code § 42-15-20(b) goes on to state that no compensation is payable to the employee unless notice is given within 90 days, except when the employee had a reasonable excuse and the employer was not prejudiced by the delay.
Although the rules are fairly straightforward, disputes still may arise. Recently, the state’s highest court examined a case in which an employee insisted that he had given notice, but a witness for the employer claimed that the employee’s version of events did not “ring a bell.”
The majority of personal injury cases, wrongful death actions, and bad faith insurance claims are litigated in state court. However, the federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction in such cases if there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and there is more than $75,000 is in controversy.
Litigation in either the state or the federal system can be protracted and complex. Typically, a suit begins with the plaintiff filing a complaint, and the defendant filing an answer (and sometimes a counter-complaint against the plaintiff or a third-party complaint against someone not yet involved in the case).
Once the pleadings are filed, the next phase of litigation is the discovery phase, during which the parties are given an opportunity to submit document requests, interrogatories, and requests to admit so that each side can learn as much as possible about the other’s case. This is both to help the parties prepare for trial and to encourage settlement, if at all possible.
It seems that the amount of paperwork required in order to be admitted to a hospital, nursing home, or other health care facility grows with each passing year. It can be overwhelming even under the best of circumstances. Unfortunately, health care providers can be quite demanding and pushy, shoving papers into a patient’s hands or insisting that a loved one complete them prior to admission.
In many cases, the patient or the family member has no idea what he or she is signing. This is especially true when it comes to arbitration agreements, which have the power to prevent a dispute between the patient and the facility from proceeding to court.
The litigation of a personal injury case can be protracted and sometimes complex. Many issues can arise, and the parties may disagree at every possible juncture. It is then up to the trial judge to decide the various pre-trial, trial, and post-trial issues that arise.
A recent federal case sheds some light on some of the pre-trial issues that may come up in a personal injury case.
There are several issues that are common in nursing home and senior care litigation, such as falls, medication errors, bedsores, and medical malpractice. In the recent unreported per curiam opinion of Evanston Insurance Company v. Agape Senior Primary Care, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was asked to review a case arising in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia that presented a more unique issue.
In early 2012, the defendant facility hired a man who held himself out to be a board-certified physician. In actuality, the man was an impostor, and he had stolen the identity of the real physician, who was out of the country at the time. Approximately six months later, the defendant learned of the impostor’s fraud when he was arrested. He was later convicted and sentenced to two years in federal prison for aggravated identify theft.
Although there are limitations and certain disadvantages to a workers’ compensation case as opposed to a more traditional negligence lawsuit, there are some pluses. Among these is the opportunity to reopen one’s case if there is a change in one’s physical condition.
In other injury cases, such as those arising from motor vehicle accidents and product liability claims, this is not possible. Once a jury determines the amount of damages to which an injured person is entitled, and a judge enters judgment upon the verdict, the case is over (except, of course, in cases of an appeal, but even then a change in condition is not likely to result in any increase in the amount of damages for the plaintiff).
In workers’ compensation cases, however, increased benefits are a possibility in some situations.
When an employee is hurt or becomes ill as a result of his or her employment, the employee may pursue workers’ compensation benefits such as medical care, temporary total disability payments, and permanent total disability benefits.
In cases in which an employee dies as a result of his or her employment, the family of the worker is usually entitled to compensation in lieu of payments to the employee. However, in some cases, an issue arises as to whether an injury was, in fact, work-related or whether it arose during the course and scope of the worker’s employment.
Personal injury lawsuits and workers’ compensation claims must be timely filed, or else they will be dismissed unless they meet the very narrow criteria of an exception to the general rule.
The statutes of limitations that control the filing deadlines for injury and wrongful death lawsuits exist to encourage plaintiffs to pursue valid claims with reasonable diligence and to protect defendants against stale claims that might be difficult to defend due to the spoliation of evidence.
Of course, determining exactly when a claim accrued – and whether it qualifies as an exception to the general time limitations for a particular type of lawsuit – tends to be a difficult and highly contentious matter.
Historically, in South Carolina , there was no common law cause of action holding restaurants and bars responsible for injuries by drunk drivers who consumed alcohol at their establishments. In numerous states, dram shop acts were legislated which provided remedies to those injured by drunk drivers who were over served at restaurants and bars. South Carolina enacted “Beverage Control Regulations” which included criminal penalties for alcohol served by restaurants and bars to intoxicated individuals. Later, South Carolina created a civil cause of action based on a violation of South Carolina Code 61-4-580(2) and 61-6-2220 which prohibit the knowing sale of beer or wine to an intoxicated person or the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons.
Prior to 2007, South Carolina courts seemed to require an injured person seeking redress against a restaurant or bar to prove that such an establishment “knowingly” sold alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d. 318 (1998). In 2010, our supreme court extended responsibility for bartenders of such establishments by holding, “The proper standard, … is whether the bartenders negligently served alcoholic beverages by a person who, by his appearance or otherwise, would lead a prudent man to believe that the person was intoxicated.” The Court went on to say that, “In our view, ‘knew or should have known’ is the articulation of the objective ‘reasonable person’ standard.” Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge and Grill, Inc., 388 S.C. 407, 419, 697 S.E.2d. 558, 564 (2010). Continue Reading ›
South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog
