Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brown v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 9, 2003No. 25662Published

1DissentJustice Pleicones

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion and would affirm the Court of Appeals.

Workers’ compensation laws were enacted so that the “employee receives the right to swift and sure compensation; the employer receives immunity from tort actions by the employee. This quid pro quo approach to workers’ compensation has worked to the advantage of society as well as the employee and employer.” Parker v. Williams and Madjanik, Inc., 275 S.C. 65, 70, 267 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1980). The purpose of workers’ compensation is to settle claims quickly and efficiently. Id. One of the ways the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Crist v. MoffattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Salaam v. North Carolina Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  3. Nelson v. Yellow Cab Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
  4. Goodman v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1995
  5. Parker v. Williams and Madjanik, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1980

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

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

Powered by the Exa API