Exclusive - Sanford Settles With Workers’ Comp Commission
AGREEMENT A “MIXED BAG” IN FIGHT TO MAKE SOUTH CAROLINA MORE COMPETITIVE
FITSNews - July 24, 2008 - S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford has reached a settlement with members of South Carolina’s workers’ compensation commission over a series of executive orders issued last year which forced the commission to apply objective standards to their settlement awards.
The agreement - which is subject to approval by the S.C. Supreme Court - would mandate enhanced public disclosure of the exorbitant attorney fees that commissioners have routinely awarded in the past, but it appears to mark a retreat by the governor on the bigger issue, namely that commissioners apply objective AMA guidelines when awarding damages.
For years, the S.C. Workers’ Compensation Commission has refused to follow such guidelines and effectively hidden their attorney fees and awards from public view - in one case demanding payment of over half a million dollars when citizens sought access to these public records.
Under the proposed agreement, commissioners would now be required to report both fees and awards on a quarterly basis, which most observers agree should facilitate fairer rulings.
The governor’s office declined to comment on the settlement, but one conservative legislator said that the enhanced disclosure in the proposed ruling would help protect workers and promote economic growth.
“It’s high time we had this sort of sunlight,” said State Rep. Mick Mulvaney. “This is another one of those unseen impediments to growing our state’s economy. It’s not something the public is generally aware of, but you better believe that the people who decide whether or not to bring jobs to this state are looking at it. Basically, the more light we can shed on the bureaucratic process and how it impedes real economic development and job growth in this state, the better off we’re going to be.”
As for the agreement’s failure to require commissioners to comply with objective standards, members of the business community said that getting those standards passed legislatively was the next critical step.
“This is a skirmish in a larger war to protect South Carolina businesses – particularly small businesses,” said Cam Crawford, director of the S.C. Civil Justice Coalition.
South Carolina’s legal climate is currently rated seventh-worst in the nation, a position which Crawford said “creates a tremendous disincentive in terms of bringing in jobs, capital investment and higher income levels to this state.”
“If anything, this proposed settlement reinforces how important it is that we put objective workers’ compensation guidelines into the South Carolina code of laws,” Crawford said.
Comments
By SChotline on July 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Will, I think I might have seen this pic of our Gov, what is exclusive??
By steen on July 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The proposed consent agreement was circulated widely last week; however, there is still a raging debate as to how so-called “scheduled awards” for permanent loss of use of listed body members are to be calculated. This is far from over!
By Mens Rea on July 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
It’s rated 7th-worst by a group that basically pulls numbers out of a hat.
Disability ratings are based on objective standards, i.e., the AMA Guidelines (which themselves require subjective assessment by doctors - there is not really any such thing as a purely objective physical injury), which give an impairment rating based on the percentage of loss of use of a given body part.
This is where the opponents of our system would have things stop. A person might get a 45% loss of use to the left hand under the AMA guidelines, and the Commission would then translate that into a monetary award. That sounds simple and fair, right?
Our system, however, makes the entirely logical distinction between actual physical, measurable impairment, and disability from earning a living. Consider the following: if a right-handed lawyer loses 45% of the use of her left hand, she will not be as disabled from earning a living as would a bricklayer or machinist with a similar injury. Therefore our system requires an impartial judicial officer to determine what degree of actual disability results to an individual, given that person’s age, occupation, and education level, and degree of physical impairment. Thus the lawyer might be awarded 50% to the hand, and the bricklayer 75%.
We have a fair system in South Carolina.
By Red Bank Bar on July 24th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Mens, Mens, don’t confuse these plutocrats with facts, they can’t handle the truth.
I want to see how much Collins & Lacy, Nelson Motors, Sam Painter, McAngus, et al., make off the system. Let’s reveal insurance company defense lawyers fees.
We need some sunshine on insurance companies, Rep. Mick. I know, I know, you can’t support that since it makes so much sense and would actually lead to rate reductions. You’d rather mouth phony attacks on workers lawyers. Who, BTW, represent less than five percent of all workers compensated in the system.
By estelle getty lives in my pants on July 25th, 2008 at 6:42 am
@ Red Bank Bar
The answer to your question is: not as much as you think. Insurance companies pay crap rates to their lawyers, and pay even crappier rates to WC defense lawyers. The only way to really make money is to do volume.
By Red Bank Bar on July 25th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Ok, Estelle, let’s reveal their attorneys fees and let us see for ourselves. Bottom line, this is all about making more money for insurance companies and paying injured workers less.
Mens Rea is 100 % correct. We have the most conservative group of commissioners in history and even they know Marshall’s power grab attempt was unlawful and wrong.
By Silence Dogood on July 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
If Sanford would have studied basic civics he would have know that he is not allowed to “legislate” from the executive mansion and would have realized that he was trying to thwart the express actions of the legisature by executively passing what should be legislation, through an executive decree…However, he holds the title of governor, not king. Whether one agrees with S.C. determination of WCC impairment ratings or not, the real issue in this kerfuffle was Sandfords stupidity in trying to circumvent the legislative process.