October 9, 2013 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

State v Lane

Lane was convicted of first degree burglary. The panel reversed holding the evidence presented (that a car was seen at the house burglarized, that Lane drove a similar car on the day of the burglary, that a paper from a government office visited by Lane was found at the house and that Lane asked someone to lie for him) at most raised a suspicion of guilt and was therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Hartzell v Palmetto Collision, LLC

Hartzell filed a claim for workers compensation based on a back injury. The commission awarded benefits. The panel reversed. It first held that Palmetto was a covered employer because it employed four persons during the relevant time period of January to March 2009, they worked with some consistency based on the amount of cars needing to be repaired. The panel reversed, however, because Hartzell presented no evidence that he gave Palmetto notice of his injury. Instead, he merely told his supervisor that his back was sore which is inadequate to provide notice of a claim.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s