Legal Opinion

Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLC

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 13, 2016No. Appellate Case 2013-002611; 27620PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Acting Justice, TOAL.

Richard Hartzell (Petitioner) appeals the court of appeals’ decision reversing the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (the Commission) determination that he was entitled to medical benefits for a work-related back injury. See Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, L.L.C., 406 S.C. 233, 750 S.E.2d 97 (Ct.App.2013). We reverse and remand.

Factual/Procedural History

In February 2009, Petitioner, who was fifty years old at the time, worked as an auto body paint technician for Palmetto Collision, LLC (Employer). According to Petitioner, on or around February 25, 2009, he…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  2. Etheredge v. Monsanto Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
  3. Grant v. Grant TextilesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  4. Pierre v. Seaside Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
  5. State v. PinckneySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Nero v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2018
  2. Hartzell v. Palmetto Collision, LLCCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2016
  3. Nero v. S.C. Dep't of Transp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API