 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lester v. South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission3/22/1999
Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 12 S.E. 2d
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS Appeal From Charleston County Daniel E. Martin, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
Heard January 6, 1999
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of Lester v. South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, 328 S.C. 535, 493 S.E.2d 103 (Ct. App. 1997). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
FACTS
Petitioner Ric Lester d/b/a Fair Play Video (Lester) opened a video casino in November 1992. He had no payroll in 1992. In January 1993, Lester began hiring a series of temporary and "rollover" employees. In May 1993, an employee was shot during a robbery of the video casino. In May 1994, Lester acquired workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees.
Lester was directed to appear before Respondent South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) to show cause why he should not be found in violation of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act (the Act) for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance coverage for his employees from February 1993 until May 26, 1994. Lester argued, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1 360(2)(1985), he was exempt from the requirements of the Act because his payroll was less than $3,000 during 1992.
The single commissioner concluded Lester was not exempt under § 42-1-360(2). The Appellate Panel, circuit court, and Court of Appeals affirmed. Lester, supra.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err by construing the minimum payroll exemption provision of § 42-1-360(2) as requiring an employer 1) to have a positive payroll during the previous calendar year and 2) to expect a similarly low payroll during the current calendar year?
DISCUSSION
Section 42-1-360(2) provides as follows:
"This Title shall not apply to:"
"(2) Any person who has regularly employed in service less than four employees in the same business within the State or who had a total annual payroll during the previous calendar year of less than three thousand dollars regardless of the number of persons employed during that period." (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals interpreted the minimum payroll provision of § 42-1-360(2) as exempting employers who have an annual payroll of less than $3,000 (but at least some payroll) and who expect to have a similarly low payroll during the current year. Since Lester did not meet the requirements of the minimum payroll exemption because he had no payroll during 1992, the Court of Appeals concluded he was not exempt from providing his employees with workers' compensation in 1993. Lester, supra.
Lester agrees the Court of Appeals correctly held the purpose of the minimum payroll provision is "to avoid administrative inconvenience to very small employers." Given this purpose, Lester asserts it is unlikely the General Assembly intended to exempt small employers, but not to exempt even smaller employers who have no payroll.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is for the Court to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Mid-State Auto Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 476 S.E.2d 690 (1996). If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for employing rules of statutory interpretation and the Court has no right to look for or impose another meaning. Miller v. Doe, 312 S.C. 444, 441 S.E.2d 319 (1994). Where a statute is ambiguous, however, the Court must construe the terms of the statute. Workers' compensation s
Page 1 2 South Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|