 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Whitworth v. Window World7/26/2005
Heard June 21, 2005
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Tracy Lee Whitworth was injured in an automobile accident while he was transporting a large piece of equipment to a jobsite. He filed a claim for workers' compensation, which the single commissioner and full commission denied. The circuit court affirmed the commission's denial, and Whitworth appeals, arguing his injury fell within an exception to the "going and coming" rule. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Whitworth was employed as a window installer by Window World, Inc. To complete some installations, Whitworth needed to install coil (an aluminum wrap) around the windows, which required the use of a large piece of equipment called a breaker. Whitworth transported the breaker to each jobsite because the coil could not be measured and fabricated at the shop.
Window World paid Whitworth an extra ten dollars for each window he installed that required a metal break, but did not compensate him for travel time or expenses. The company required installers to have their own trucks and prohibited installers from leaving breakers on the jobsite.
Whitworth was scheduled to install windows at the home of Elaine McLauren on November 22, 2000, but he rescheduled the job to observe Thanksgiving Day with his brother. Whitworth began work on November 25 and worked for two days but was unable to finish the job due to rain. Whitworth planned to return to the McLauren home on November 27, and he needed a breaker to complete the installation. Window World's breaker was not available for Whitworth's use, but the owner of Window World made arrangements with Whitworth's brother so that Whitworth could use his brother's breaker and trailer. While transporting the breaker in the trailer to McLauren's home, Whitworth was injured in an automobile accident. He reported the accident the same day.
The owners of Window World, upon their return from vacation, fired Whitworth for failing to complete the McLauren job before November 27, when he was scheduled to begin another job. Both the McLauren and the other scheduled jobs would have required Whitworth to bring the breaker to the jobsite. Although he had been fired, Whitworth completed the McLauren job after his accident. Based on his injuries, Whitworth filed a workers' compensation claim.
The single commissioner found that Whitworth failed to prove his accident fell within an exception to the going and coming rule. Based on this finding, the single commissioner concluded that Whitworth did not sustain an injury in the course of his employment and was not entitled to receive workers' compensation. The full commission affirmed the order of the single commissioner, as did the circuit court. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Generally, whether a causal connection exists between employment and an injury is a question of fact for the full commission. Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 159, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999) (citation omitted). "The [full commission's] decision must be affirmed if the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Id. at 160, 519 S.E.2d at 105. On the other hand, an appellate court may reverse or modify a decision of the full commission if the decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Hargrove v. Titan Textile Co., 360 S.C. 276, 288-89, 599 S.E.2d 604, 610-11 (Ct. App. 2004). Substantial evidence is that which, in viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the full commission reached. Gray v. Club Group, Ltd., 339 S.C. 173, 183, 528 S.E.2d 435,
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|