November 27, 2013 South Carolina Court of Appeals published opinions

ZAN, LLC v Ripley Cove, LLC

ZAN purchased lots and slips from Ripley. ZAN learned that the slip could not be widened to allow ZAN’s boat to dock and sued to rescind the contract. The master ruled Ripley had negligently misrepresented the ownership and width of the slip, but awarded damages instead of rescission as there was n dispute as to one of the lots. The panel reversed and remanded. Applying de novo review, it held that the misrepresentation was proven, the ability to dock the boat was central to the contract and, because rescission would apply to all lots and slips, recession was available. However, because there was no evidence as to the feasibility of returning the parties to the status quo before the contract, the case was remanded for findings on this issue.

Baker v Hilton Hotels Corporation

Baker sought worker’s compensation permanent disability benefits for injuries to his brain and back sustained when ceiling tile fell on his head. Benefits were awarded for the back, but, not the claimed brain injury. The panel affirmed in part and remanded. It held that the appellate panel’s finding there was physical brain damage appeared to be inconsistent with physician’s report relied upon. Thus, the panel remanded instructing the appellate panel to clarify its treatment of the report and cite specific evidence to justify its conclusion about whether Baker suffered physical brain injury. The panel affirmed the appellate panel’s reliance on an overturned Court of Appeals opinion as the portion relied upon remains a correct statement of the law for the proposition cited.

Fragosa v Cade Construction, LLC

Fragosa was severely injured when hit in the head by a crane. He sought permanent lifetime benefits for brain damage which was denied. The panel affirmed in part and remanded. It held that eh appellate panel made inconsistent findings as to whether there was brain damage and remanded the case for determination if there was damage and specific evidentiary support if the finding is yes. The panel affirmed reliance on a doctor’s report as the doctor reasonably relied on the diagnostic conclusions of radiologists and other physicians in reaching his conclusion.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s