Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Marquard v. Pacific Columbia Mills

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 27, 1982No. 21789Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGregory, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion as to all issues except its holding that the Industrial Commission did not err in refusing to submit the case to a medical board pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 42-11-120 (1976). I think submission to a medical board is mandated by statute in this case and dissent as to that issue.

Section 1-23-380(g) of the Code (Cum. Supp. 1981) provides the scope of review of administrative agency decisions. The Industrial Commission is an agency within the meaning of § 1-23-380. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S. C. 130, 276 S. E. (2d) 304 (1981).

The Circuit Court and this Court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  2. Sturkie v. Ballenger Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
  3. Mitchem v. FISKE-CARTER CONSTRUCTION CO.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API