• Alternative Dispute Resolution
  
• Appellate
  
• Banking
  
• Bankruptcy
  
• Business Litigation
  
• Church Law
  
• Collections
  
• Construction Law
  
• Contract Law
  
• Corporate Law
  
• Estate Planning
  
• Fidelity & Surety Law
  
• Hospital and Medical
  Malpractice Defense
  
• Insurance Coverage
  
• Landlord - Tenant
  
• Legal Malpractice Defense
  
• Litigation
  
• Mechanic’s Liens
  
• Military Law
  
• Nursing Home Liability Defense
  
• Personal Injury
  
• Premises Liability
  
• Products Liability
  
• Probate Law
  
• Professional Liability
  
• Real Estate
  
• Retirement Plans
  
• Taxation
  
• Workers’ Compensation

This page is a compilation of recent developments in our firm’s Practice Areas. Updates are presented chronologically below. To sort by Practice Area, select a Practice Area from the menu at left.

Gissel v. Hart, 382 S.C. 235, 676 S.E.2d 320 (2009).
Opinion No. 26639, decided April 20, 2009.
Practice Areas: Litigation

In Gissel v. Hart, 373 S.C. 281, 644 S.E.2d 772 (Ct. App. 2007), several mobile home purchasers sued a mobile home dealership, naming both the dealership and several individuals as defendants. The dealership settled and an arbitrator awarded damages against the individual defendants. The South Carolina Court of Appeals found that the plaintiffs’ complaint did not clearly assert claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities rather than as representatives of the dealership and partially vacated the arbitrator’s award on that basis. However, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was error to look to the allegations of the complaint in order to determine whether the award was proper.

McCuen v. BMW Manufacturing Corp., 383 S.C. 19, 677 S.E.2d 28 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4531, decided April 15, 2009.
Practice Areas: Workers’ Compensation

The claimant sought workers’ compensation benefits for injuries allegedly sustained during his employment as a dent removal technician at an automobile manufacturing plant. The single commissioner found that the claimant had suffered accidental injuries to his neck, upper extremities, and hands arising out of his employment. The Appellate Panel affirmed, and the employer appealed only that portion of the award relating to the claimant’s alleged neck injuries. The circuit court affirmed, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the claimant did not develop neck pain until several months after leaving his employment, there was not substantial evidence supporting an award of benefits for neck injuries.

Jackson v. Bermuda Sands, Inc., 383 S.C. 11, 677 S.E.2d 612 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4530, decided April 14, 2009.
Practice Areas: Products Liability

A hotel patron was injured when a chair in the hotel’s indoor pool area collapsed as he attempted to sit in it. He subsequently filed this action against the hotel and the chair’s alleged manufacturer. The hotel settled with the patron and was removed from the case, which proceeded against the manufacturer. The manufacturer filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the patron had failed to prove the second and third elements of products liability claims because he could not show that the collapsed chair was defective or that the chair, when it collapsed, was in the same condition as when it left the manufacturer.

In re Theisen, 382 S.C. 213, 676 S.E.2d 133 (2009).
Opinion No. 26630, decided April 13, 2009.
Practice Areas: Probate Law

The decedent died on November 16, 2004, and on January 11, 2005, the personal representatives of the decedent’s estate filed his will and two codicils for informal probate in New Jersey (as specified by the will). On March 3, 2005, one of the decedent’s daughters filed a complaint in South Carolina requesting a determination of the proper forum for probating the will. The court held that principles of comity required that New Jersey courts determine any jurisdictional issues. Eleven months later, on February 3, 2006, the same daughter filed a petition in South Carolina challenging the validity of the will, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the action was barred by the eight-month limitations period provided in S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-108(3). On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute began to run when the will was filed for informal probate in New Jersey and rejecting the daughter’s argument that the statute did not apply to out-of-state probate proceedings.

Mead v. Jessex, Inc., 382 S.C. 525, 676 S.E.2d 722 (Ct. App. 2009).
Opinion No. 4525, decided April 2, 2009.
Practice Areas: Workers’ Compensation

The claimant alleged he was injured on the job and sought workers’ compensation benefits, which his employer initially denied. Three hearings were held. At the first, the single commissioner awarded benefits for the claimant’s right hip and right leg injury. At the second, a different single commissioner awarded benefits for back pain which he found was directly related to the claimant’s original injury. However, he denied benefits for the claimant’s alleged left hip injuries because the claimant failed to prove that they were related to the original injury. Neither party appealed the findings of the first or second single commissioners. At the third hearing, yet another single commissioner awarded benefits for a change in condition to the claimant’s left hip arising out of the original injury. The Appellate Panel reversed, finding that the claimant’s claim for benefits related to his left hip was barred by res judicata because the unappealed finding of the second single commissioner that the claimant’s left hip injuries were unrelated to the original injury was the law of the case. The circuit court reversed the Appellate Panel, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Appellate Panel’s decision, finding that res judicata barred the claimant from relitigating the alleged injuries to his left hip.

Archives
April 2009
March 2009 | February 2009 | January 2009
December 2008 | November 2008 | October 2008
September 2008 | August 2008 | July 2008
June 2008 | May 2008 | April 2008
March 2008 | February 2008 | January 2008
December 2007 | November 2007 | October 2007
September 2007 | August 2007 | July 2007
June 2007 | May 2007 | April 2007
March 2007 | February 2007 | January 2007

 

Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP makes this information available as a service to its clients and friends. This information is not a solicitation or an effort to provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The information provided should not be relied upon without consulting a qualified attorney to determine if it is applicable to a specific legal need.