Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Watson v. Xtra Mile Driver Training, Inc.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided August 1, 2012No. 5013Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partGeathers, J.

Respectfully, I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur with the majority’s holdings that: (1) Watson’s strength assessment was properly admitted into evidence, and (2) the employer is entitled to a credit for payment of temporary disability benefits made after Watson reached maximum medical improvement. I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s holding that Watson is not permanently and totally disabled, pursuant to sections 42-9-10 and 42-9-30(21) of the South Carolina Code (Supp.2011).

In South Carolina, there are two models of workers’ compensation; the first, an economic…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wynn v. Peoples Natural Gas Co. of SCSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1961
  2. Fields v. Owens Corning FiberglasSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1990
  3. Stephenson v. Rice Services, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1996
  4. Simmons v. City of CharlestonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
  5. McCollum v. Singer CompanyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API