The South Carolina Court of Appeals published three opinions.
In Foran v. Murphy USA, is an appeal arising from the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission’s (the Commission) denial of compensation for injuries suffered by Appellant, the S.C. Court of Appeals reversed the Commission’s decision and remanded to the Appellate Panel for a determination of benefits. The court held that the Appellate Panel of the Commission erred in finding Appellant’s injury resulted from an idiopathic fall that was not compensable as an “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of [her] employment.” S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (2015). An idiopathic fall is one that is brought on by a purely personal condition unrelated to the employment, such as heart attack or seizure. However, Appellant’s injury occurred while she was in constant motion—stocking cigarettes, rising from one knee while turning around toward the register and stepping forward with her left foot. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded.
In State v. Thompson, Appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for first-degree burglary and third-degree assault and battery, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
The Court found that the trial court properly admitted the trespass notice letter and 911 recording. The trespass notice letter was relevant to an element of first-degree in Appellant’s case as the letter shows that Appellant was not a resident of the apartment complex. The 911 recording was authenticated and did not violate Appellant’s Confrontation Clause rights. In addition, the court held that the State presented sufficient evidence that Appellant broke into Drafton’s apartment without her consent and with the intent to injure her to survive his motion for a directed verdict on the first-degree burglary charge. The court further held that the trial court properly denied Appellant’s motion for a new trial. The Court found no errors in regard to other issues Appellant raised on appeal; therefore, there is no merit to his argument that the cumulative effect of the errors were so prejudicial as to deprive him of a fair trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In Tillman v. Tillman, in this appeal the court analyzed whether an order denying a motion to reconsider an order that granted a motion to dismiss is immediately appealable when it also grants the party leave to file a motion to amend the pleadings. The Court found the order is not immediately appealable because Appellant’s rights have yet to be finally determined by the circuit court. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.