Proposed Regulation Would Make Mediation Mandatory In Certain S.C. Workers' Compensation Cases








By Lana Sims

The South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission has submitted to the General Assembly for approval a proposed regulation requiring parties to mediate certain claims.  

As set out in the Court-Annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules first adopted in 2006 by the South Carolina Supreme Court, (and making mediation mandatory in certain civil trial and family courts), mediation is defined as: 

An informal process in which a third-party mediator facilitates settlement discussions between parties.  Any settlement is voluntary.  In the absence of settlement, the parties lose none of their rights to trial.

For several years, parties with disputes pending at the Workers’ Compensation Commission have been encouraged to mediate their cases before going to a hearing.  However, under Proposed Regulation 67-1801, which can be found here, parties must mediate the following claims prior to a hearing:

  • claims arising under S.C. Code § 42-9-10;
  • claims where permanent and total disability are alleged under S.C. Code § 42-9-30(21);
  • occupational disease cases;
  • third-party lien reduction cases;
  • contested death claims; 
  •  mental/mental injury claims;
  •  cases of concurrent jurisdiction under the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act and the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.

Like the ADR Rules referenced above, the Proposed Regulation mandates that parties must mediate in good faith.  Moreover, information exchanged in mediation must be held in confidence, and cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding.

The General Assembly is expected to affirmatively approve the Proposed Regulation upon its return in January.  Absent legislative action, the Proposed Regulation will become law on May 8, 2013.

Lana Sims and Earl Ellis of Ellis Lawhorne have a very active ADR practice, mediating workers’ compensation claims and a wide variety of civil litigation matters.  The two have conducted more than 600 workers’ compensation mediations in the past two years, and look forward to mediating claims under the procedures set out in the Proposed Regulation.

Popular posts from this blog

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC
Read more

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much judicial scruti
Read more

The SC Insurance Data Security Act: Ask Some Questions to Evaluate Your Security Program

Image
The  South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act  (“Act”), fashioned after the  NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law  (Model Law), went into effect on January 1, 2019. South Carolina was the first state in the nation to pass this legislation, and others (Ohio, Mississippi), have followed suit. The Act requires that each South Carolina person licensed or authorized by the South Carolina Department of Insurance (DOI) a “Licensee” must implement, no later than July 1, 2019, a “comprehensive written information security program” (“Program”) designed to protect nonpublic information (NPI) and the security of the Licensee’s information system. In addition, the Act requires a Licensee to report to the Director of the DOI within 72 hours following an actual or potential “cybersecurity event.” S.C. Code Section 38-99-40(A) (Section 6(A) of the Model Act). While South Carolina Licensees (hopefully) are well down the path to meeting the Act’s requirements, the following may be u
Read more