In Baril v. Aiken Regional Medical Center the South Carolina Court of Appeals reinforced its position that employee handbooks can be viewed as an employment contract if the handbook contains promises from the employer regarding workplace procedures.

In the October 2002 ruling, the Court found that "If an employee handbook contains promises and/or mandatory procedural obligations, the courts may consider such language as creating a binding employment contract between a company and its employees." The question of whether a contract exists is for a jury to determine, despite the presence of a disclaimer in the handbook.

Employers have long relied upon "legal disclaimers" to insure that any promises made in the handbook would not be viewed as contractual. Now a jury can decide if such actual promises in the face of explicit disclaimers create an employment contract between the employer and the employees. Failure to follow such handbook promises could subject employers to litigation over their employment decisions, opening the door to monetary damages and even employee reinstatement.

In light of the Baril line of cases, all employment policies, manuals and handbooks should be carefully scrutinized by an attorney knowledgeable in the employment law area. Additionally, any recent or future employee termination decisions should be carefully reviewed.

The basic employment-at-will rule in South Carolina still exists. However, the courts now may view certain statements made to employees as contractual and binding, effectively and, from the employer’s point of view, inadvertently amending the employment-at-will rule.

State Farm Held Accountable for Denying Legitimate Claim

A West Virginia jury recently found in favor of the Plaintiff in an action against State Farm Insurance Company for its bad faith refusal to settle an auto accident claim. The jury found that State Farm violated West Virginia’s Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act with such frequency that it constituted a general business practice as to all of its insured. The Plaintiff showed a pattern of conduct not only in West Virginia but all across the country. Since State Farm’s conduct was also willful, malicious and intentional, the Plaintiff was awarded punitive damages.

State Farm argued throughout the five years of litigation that the Plaintiff was at fault in the accident and therefore the claim was denied. The jury found that the Defendant was 90% responsible for the accident and awarded the Plaintiff accordingly.

The Plaintiff had a wealth of documents to support his bad faith claim such as evidence showing State Farm knew the Plaintiff’s claim was legitimate, testimony that State Farm had a program for destroying documents, evidence of State Farm’s practice of disposing of claims as quickly as possible which created a disincentive for proper investigation by the agent, evidence of State Farm’s policy of litigating legitimate claims and evidence implying the company knew the Plaintiff’s medical claim was legitimate.

The key to this verdict was convincing the jury that State Farm knew all along that the Plaintiff had a legitimate claim, but wrongfully refused to pay.

Tort Reform: Another Name for Socialized Justice?

Recently a number of wealthy doctors gathered on the State House steps to demand legislation to limit victims’ rights to sue them for their negligence. In fact, they threatened to go on "strike" if their demands were not met. The hypocrisy was thick. These doctors, these privileged few, who receive great wealth from our society and who have railed against the horrors of "socialized medicine" for years, seem anxious to impose "socialized justice" upon us.

For contact information for your Congressional Representative, go to http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: CREEPING INJURIES

When we think of workers’ compensation accidents, we usually think of someone who has been hurt in a single, instantaneous accident on the job. That is not always the case. Some work-related injuries develop slowly over years of repetitive use or exposure. Such slowly-developing, work-related conditions and injuries include the following: Dupuytren’s contraction, Raynaud’s disease, deafness, dermatitis, latex allergy, nephritis, bronchitis, bursitis, myositis, neuritis, arthritis, encephalitis, epicondylitis, tenosynovitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, cancer, gastric ulcer, eye injury, cataracts, back injury, herniated disc, silicosis, asbestosis, and other dust diseases, pneumonia, lead poisoning, monoxide poisoning, asthma, emphysema, and the like.

If you are suffering from a "creeping" work-related injury, you may have a workers’ compensation claim. Remember, you must notify your employer of any such injury within 90 days of the injury and file a claim within two years of the injury or last date of exposure to the problem that caused the injury. If you think you have a work-related injury or have questions about any of this, please call us. We will be happy to investigate the matter for you.

The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act

(SSCRA) of 1940 (SSCRA) (50 U.S.C. App. §§ 501-548 & 560-593) was enacted to protect members of the armed forces whose ability to fulfill their financial obligations and to assert their legal rights may be affected by their call to active duty. Examples of protections for service members within the Act include: assistance in delaying certain court actions until they can be present to defend themselves, a procedure for setting aside default judgments, and a process for temporarily lowering interest rates and delaying the collection of certain debts while service members The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act are on active duty. The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act also includes provisions addressing the needs of service members with regard to insurance and tax matters. Detailed information on the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 is provided by the Judge Advocate General’s Corps by clicking on their "Legal Services" link at http://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Legal.

Another informative website is provided by the US Coast Guard at http://www.uscg.mil/legal/la/topics/sscra/about_the_sscra.htm.

States have enacted their own version of USERRA to provide for their citizens serving in the National Guard. South Carolina’s reemployment laws, applicable to both state and national guard members, can be found at SC Code Ann. §§25-1-2310-2340. For detailed coverage of USERRA go to the Coast Guard’s website at http://www.uscg.mil/legal/la/topics/sscra/userra.htm .