Workers’ Compensation Defense

Overview

When an employee brings forward a workplace injury claim, we recognize all the costs – tangible and intangible – facing employers and other stakeholders. We have the experience and ability to deftly navigate the most complicated claims and balance the need for negotiation with aggressive advocacy to resolve cases and exceed client expectations.

Turner Padget’s Workers’ Compensation Practice partners with employers of all sizes and insurance companies to provide compensation defense and resolution across South Carolina. Our services span the spectrum of client needs, including coordinating compensation defense strategies, carefully crafting settlement agreements, and providing representation for mediations, hearings and appeals.

Our team consists of talented, business-thinking attorneys who evaluate the exposure of each case and bring practical, common-sense solutions to every case we handle. Our innate understanding of how each claim affects employers and insurance companies allows us to deliver as much of a business solution as a legal solution.

Experience

Represented a national trucking company against an alleged workplace accident filed by a claimant who contended she was injured while entering her work truck. We worked closely with the third-party administrator and employer to conduct discovery that revealed contradictory evidence. Through rigorous cross-examination, the claimant was found not credible and the claim for benefits was denied.
Represented a local manufacturer in a repetitive trauma claim that resulted in a favorable outcome for the employer / carrier. An appeal was filed and resolved in mediation.
Represented a local site clearing company against the owner / operator who claimed a shoulder injury also affected his arm, entitling him to a general disability award. The claim was litigated, and the single commissioner disagreed and found that the injury was limited to the shoulder. The single commissioner rationalized that if an amputation would have occurred, the claimant would not have been compensated for the fingers, hand, arm and shoulder, but compensation would have been limited to the greatest member, the shoulder.
Defended a claimant who worked at a plant where synthetic yarn was made. She filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging she had developed pulmonary and lung problems in the form of either an injury by accident or occupational disease as result of exposure to yarn fibers. The defendants were able to establish that the claimant actually suffered from a condition called hypersensitivity pneumonitis. This condition was not caused by synthetic yarn fibers but rather organic molds. The claimant hired an out-of-state expert who rendered an opinion that her disease came from exposure at work. The local physician who had diagnosed the claimant, though, rendered an opinion that the molds are ubiquitous in the atmosphere. The matter went to a hearing before a single commissioner, who denied the compensability of the claim and specifically found that the claimant failed to prove that any of the molds in question existed in sufficient quantity to cause her problem. This was good news for the defense since, if compensable, this may well have been a permanent and total disability claim with lifetime causally related medical treatment.