Shatto v. Mcleod: The “Specifics” (Or Lack Thereof) In Circumstantial Evidence

by Collins & Lacy, P.C.

S.C. Court of Appeals relies upon circumstantial evidence to find in favor of injured worker in a claim denied by Defendants on grounds of idiopathic injury.

The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently had its second go-around with a workers’ compensation claim filed by a nurse anesthetist against a temporary medical staffing agency and against the hospital where that agency placed her to work. In Shatto v. McLeod Regional Medical Center, Opinion No. 5239, filed June 11, 2014, the injured worker, Mildred Shatto, alleged she sustained an injury by accident resulting from a fall in an operating room at McLeod Regional Medical Center. The Defendants, Staff Care, Inc., and McLeod Regional Medical Center (“McLeod”) each denied an employment relationship with Shatto. Alternatively, and more relevant to this particular opinion, each also denied the accident and injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment by alleging an idiopathic as the cause for her fall.

This case brings with it a rather complicated and tortuous procedural history. This particular opinion from the Court of Appeals on remand from the S.C. Supreme Court addresses only the Defendants’ argument of idiopathic injury as a basis for denying compensability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. For purposes of examining the Court of Appeals’ decision on this argument, the procedural history need not be examined in much detail. Suffice it to say that after the Court of Appeals found no employment relationship between Shatto and McLeod, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari only to address the question of employment and right to control under South Carolina jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ultimately determined sufficient right to control rested with McLeod such that there was an employment relationship with Shatto. The Court then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to rule on McLeod’s idiopathic argument, Shatto v. McLeod Regional Medical Center, 406 S.C. 470, 753 S.E.2d 416 (2013). The remand resulted in a Court of Appeals decision that McLeod’s idiopathic injury argument was not compelling. The Court affirmed the original finding of compensability by the Workers’ Compensation Commission.

In so ruling, the Court of Appeals cited established precedent that, “To be compensable, [an] injury is not required to be foreseen or expected, but after the event, it must appear to have originated in a risk connected with the employment and to have come from that source as a rational consequence.” Shatto v. McLeod Regional Medical Center, Opinion No. 5239, filed June 11, 2014 (citing Ardis v. Combined Ins. Co., 380 S.C. 313, 320-21, 669 S.E.2d 628, 632 (Ct. App. 2008)) The fundamental basis for any argument of idiopathic origin is that “the basic cause of the harm is personal, and the employment does not significantly add to the risk.” Crosby v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., 330 S.C. 489, 493, 499 S.E.2d 253, 256 (Ct. App. 1998)

The crux of McLeod’s argument was that because Shatto could not present evidence as to exactly what in the operating room caused her to fall, it would be conjectural to conclude her employment was a contributing cause of her injury. In absence of any such employment related contributing cause, argued McLeod, the cause of such a fall could only be considered personal and therefore idiopathic. This argument finds roots in the Crosby opinion, cited above.

In examining the evidence of record, the Court quoted Shatto’s testimony at hearing that she was “preparing to anesthetize a patient and was walking around the patient’s bed when her foot became caught on something and she fell.” Shatto, Opinion No. 5239. On cross-examination by defense counsel, she stated:

The patient’s bed was an electric one, so it had an electrical cord to connect it. There was an I.V. pole with the patient, and it had a pump on it, so that had a cord to be plugged in, and there was an extra I.V. pole on it at the head of the bed towards the left side of the bed. I don’t know for sure what my foot caught on, but it was one of those three things: the I.V. pole or cords from the bed or the pump.

Id. The Court also noted that after the fall, Shatto’s shoe remained at the foot of the bed.

In rejecting McLeod’s idiopathic argument, the Court of Appeals stated, “Although Shatto did not directly and unequivocally testify to what specifically caused her to fall, there is ample circumstantial evidence in the record that Shatto’s fall was the result of conditions of her employment.” Id. (emphasis added) It is well-established a work related injury may be proven either by direct or circumstantial evidence. Tiller v. Nat’l Health Care Ctr. of Sumter, 334 S.C. 333, 513 S.E.2d 843 (1999) The Court simply refined the definition of circumstantial evidence, although not dramatically, to note such evidence need not be completely specific and unequivocal. It was enough for the Commission and the Court of Appeals to award benefits on grounds Shatto tripped on something and that she was able to narrow it down to one of three items commonly found in her work environment.

Practice Pointer: In considering denial of any claim, whether on an idiopathic basis or not, employers and carriers in South Carolina should keep in mind that an injured worker’s inability to recite exactly what happened may not always be sufficient to prevail.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Collins & Lacy, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Collins & Lacy, P.C.

Collins & Lacy, P.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.