By Michael E. Chase and Zachary B. Ohanesian
In a significant decision impacting workers’ compensation claims across the state, the Supreme Court of South Carolina has issued its opinion in Brooks v. Benore Logistics Systems Inc. This decision should help to settle the fractured landscape and interpretations of Section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code (2015). The ruling reinforces the necessity of a two-part test to establish a repetitive trauma injury under state law. It clarifies what can and cannot be used as admissible evidence in such cases.
The decision highlights critical aspects of how workers’ compensation claims should be evaluated, setting a clear precedent for both employers and employees.
Case background
Dale Brooks worked as a switcher truck operator for Benore Logistics. His role required him to perform the same task many times daily, switching 45 to 65 trailers during each 12-hour shift, forcing him to enter and exit his switcher truck about 225 times daily. In January 2017, Brooks began experiencing pain in his lower back and lower extremities, which he claimed was caused by the repetitive actions he completed while moving trailers around the yard at BMW’s manufacturing plant.
Upon the claim being denied by his employer, Brooks sought independent treatment with Dr. Eric Loudermilk, who, upon review of MRI imaging, diagnosed Brooks with right lower extremity radiculopathy secondary to an L4-L5 lumbar disc protrusion. Loudermilk confirmed these findings in a questionnaire, indicating that Brooks’ injuries were the result of the repetitive activities undertaken in his employment.
In response, Benore Logistics hired an ergonomics expert to assess the potential risks associated with Brooks’ job. The expert, who was not a licensed physician, analyzed the work environment and concluded that there were no elevated risks of injury to Brooks’ back. However, the report did not mention whether the job was or was not repetitive.
Legal proceedings
The case proceeded to a hearing before a commissioner of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission, who found in favor of Brooks. The commissioner determined that Brooks had indeed suffered a compensable repetitive trauma injury under Section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code, establishing a direct causal link between his repetitive work activities and his injury based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Benore Logistics appealed the decision, and the appellate panel reversed the commissioner’s finding. The panel interpreted Section 42-1-172 as requiring a two-part test to establish a repetitive trauma injury. According to the panel, Subsection (B) of the statutory provision requires that the claimant prove by medical evidence that a causal connection exists between the condition under which the work is performed and the injury and by a preponderance of the evidence that the specific job duties are repetitive. In assigning greater weight to the ergonomic report, the panel found that Brooks did not satisfy the second prong and was barred from recovery.
Brooks then appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, which reversed the appellate panel’s decision. The Court of Appeals found that the ergonomics reports did not suffice as “medical evidence” under the test and were not competent evidence of causation.
Finally, this case arrived before the South Carolina Supreme Court, with arguments in November 2023 and the formal decision set forth on April 10, 2024. The ultimate question before the Supreme Court was: What must a claimant plead and prove to establish a compensable repetitive trauma injury under Section 42-1-172? Ultimately, the two-part test set forth in that statute was restored and confirmed.
Key findings
Again, the Supreme Court clarified that the employee must prove that the nature of the work is repetitive and there exists a causal link between the repetitive work and the injury, which must be established by expert medical evidence stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
In making this decision, the court emphasized the mandate that, where “a statute’s language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the Court must give effect to that clearly expressed legislative intent and has no right to impose any other meaning” (Grier v. AMISUB of S.C., Inc.).
Although not defined in Section 42-1-172, the court also looked to other provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act to set forth what is or is not “repetitive.” This key term is implicitly defined in Section 42-1-160(F) (2015) and means “a series of events in employment, of a similar or like nature, occurring regularly, continuously, or at frequent intervals in the course of such employment, over extended periods of time.”
In addressing this first prong — whether the work itself is repetitive — the court made it clear that this bar is not exceedingly high and can be established through lay testimony. The question then becomes, more directly, “whether the job was sufficiently repetitive to have caused the injury.”
To determine whether a causal link exists between the repetitive work and the injury, the court found that this causation must be established by expert medical evidence, which keeps in step with the statute’s plain language. While the ergonomics report might help determine whether a particular job is, in fact, repetitive, the court held that it is not relevant to the issue of causation.
Ultimately, though the Court of Appeals’ ruling was modified, the results were affirmed, and the matter was formally remanded to the appellate panel of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission to calculate Brooks’ benefit under the act as a result of a compensable incident.
Ruling’s impact
This decision has significant implications for employers and employees in South Carolina.
It provides a clear framework for employers when defending against repetitive trauma claims. Employers can challenge claims by focusing on the need for claimants to meet both prongs of the test while simultaneously understanding that nonmedical expert opinions, such as those from an ergonomics specialist, will not be probative in determining a causal link.
Claimants, however, must be prepared to present clear medical evidence, stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, linking their injuries to their repetitive work activities. This decision highlights the importance of obtaining expert medical testimony that can definitively connect the injury to the work performed, ensuring that workers’ compensation claims are evaluated based on solid medical evidence rather than statistical probabilities or ergonomic assessments.
Michael E. Chase chairs the workers’ compensation practice at Turner Padget. Zachary B. Ohanesian is an attorney with the South Carolina Bar.