Supreme Court Upends Back Ratings

by Collins & Lacy, P.C.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled claimant’s ability to hold gainful employment does not, alone, preclude a finding of total and permanent disability based on more than 50% to the back.

Further, the Supreme Court decided that regional spine impairments were actually impairments to the “back” within the meaning of the Act. This is contrary to prior practice at the Commission, in a ruling, that if it stands, greatly increases the exposure created by back injury claims.

Under the scheduled-member statute, 42-9-30, a claimant who sustains a 50% or more impairment to the back is presumed totally and permanently disabled. The statute allows the employer to rebut that presumption. A recent Supreme Court decision significantly changes an analysis of a claimant’s disability under the scheduled-member statute. Clemmons v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., Op. No. 27708 (S.C. 2017).

Clemmons sustained an injury to his back (neck) when he slipped and fell while assisting a customer in September 2010. He underwent surgery and received a spinal cord stimulator. The authorized treating physician determined Clemmons was able to work, albeit with permanent restrictions. The employer offered Clemmons a position within those permanent restrictions, working as a cashier, and Clemmons accepted the position.

The authorized treating physician, Dr. Drye, issued an opinion of maximum medical improvement in June 2011 and assigned a whole person impairment rating of 25% due to the cervical spine injury. Dr. Drye released Clemmons to return to work under permanent work restrictions including: no standing or walking for more than one hour at a time, no stair-climbing, no repetitively reaching overhead, and no lifting more than thirty pounds.

Clemmons submitted independent medical exams from various medical professionals. Dr. Forrest assigned a whole person impairment rating of 49% and opined Clemmons suffered over a 50% loss of his function of his back. Tracy Hill, a physical therapist, assigned a 26% whole person impairment rating, which converted to an 80% impairment to the cervical spine. Hill also assigned an 8% whole person impairment, which converted to a 11% impairment to the lumbar spine. Finally, Clemmons presented medical testimony from a Dr. Margalit, stating Clemmons lost more than 50% of use of his back.

Upon review of the evidence as a whole, The Single Commissioner found Clemmons sustained a 48% disability to his back. Therefore, Clemmons received a permanent partial disability award. The full Commission and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Single Commissioner’s findings.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the Commission, finding all medical opinions established Clemmons sustained more than 50% loss of use to his back. The Court, relying on Clemmons’ Brief, converted the whole person impairment ratings received from the doctors into regional spine impairment ratings. The AMA Guides 5th Edition includes a conversion chart under table 15.13, page 427. This table converts a whole person impairment rating into a rating for specific regions of the spine. Using the table under 15.13 Dr. Drye’s 25% whole person impairment rating to the spine, results in a 71% impairment to the cervical spine.

However, the scheduled-member statute, 42-9-30, does not address regions of the spine. The statute encompasses all regions using the term, “back.” Other than physical therapist Tracy Hill, none of the doctors assigning impairment ratings to Clemmons converted his impairment rating from whole person into a region of the spine. This is reasonable because impairment ratings to one region of the spine do not correlate to an impairment rating to the entire back.

The Court perceived a 71% impairment rating to the cervical spine as a 71% impairment to the back as a whole. Arguably, this is a rather large leap. Prior to this ruling, an impairment rating to the whole person due to a region of the spine was treated as an impairment rating to the back. For example a 23% whole person rating due to an injury to the cervical spine, resulted in a 23% impairment rating to the back. The Supreme Court’s change in methodology will have a drastic impact on future indemnity exposure.

Despite a finding of more than 50% impairment to the back, the Defendants in Clemmons had the ability to rebut the presumption of total and permanent disability. The Defendants argued Dr. Drye’s 25% whole person impairment coupled with Clemmons’ ability to return to work within his permanent restrictions provided substantial evidence Clemmons was not totally disabled. The Supreme Court held the mere fact a claimant continues to work, is insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of permanent and total disability. In so doing, the Court removed the consideration of a claimant’s earning ability in a determination of disability under the scheduled-member statute.

However, the very definition of disability provided by the Act is: an incapacity to earn wages because of an injury. This definition is not reserved for a specific disability statute but rather the definition of disability used for all analysis of disability under the Act.

Chief Justice Pleicones, wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part, stating evidence revealing a claimant has not suffered a wage loss as a result of the accident is relevant evidence to rebut the presumption of permanent disability.

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.