Precedent South Carolina Workers' Compensation
“Victory” for Lyme Patient - Part 2
by Kathleen Liporace
The legal battle begins with Phil Wood, who, acting in good faith, filed a form 50 to the Workers' Compensation Commission on Dec. 8, 2004 and again on May 18, 2005. At this juncture, Phil requested a hearing due to his disability insurer's refusal to pay further medical claims. Previously, Liberty Mutual had admitted liability and had paid claims submitted by Phil. They later rejected their duty to respond with utmost good faith, and denied further payment of medical claims, asserting that Phil Wood did not have Lyme disease. This ultimately left Phil without a means of compensation or medical coverage.
On September 7, 2005 Phil Wood appeared before the Workers' Compensation commissioner J. Michelle Childs. The hearing was continued on September 22, 2005 where the commissioner resumed listening to evidence from two individuals who contracted Lyme disease in the Greenwood area. Depositions were taken from Wood's Infectious Disease doctor on September 28, 2005 and his primary care physician on September 29, 2005. Upon weighing all evidence, the commissioner ruled in favor of the claimant, Phil Wood. She noted, "I find as a fact that, the Claimant's tick bites occurred while he was working in his employment as a timber buyer…that his Lyme disease resulted from the spirochetes carried by the tick or ticks; and that his disease/injury arose out of and in the course of his employment." Later the commissioner affirmed, "…there is substantial evidence… in the record that Borrelia burgdorferi, the organism that causes Lyme disease is present in South Carolina..." This decision was appealed by Canal Wood LLC and Liberty Mutual's defense attorney. Curiously, at the time, Phil remained employed with Canal Wood, and continued to have the aid of an assistant, due to his well-documented medical disability. The dynamics of this case are unique pertaining to Mr. Wood's employment with Canal, which was simultaneously pursuing adversarial action against him via the company's Workers' Compensation insurer's attorney. In so doing, the defendants argued that Phil wasn't "suffering from Lyme disease or any other occupational disease by injury arising out of and in the course of his employment". Previous to and during this time Phil was without treatment or medication that would have benefited him in fighting the disease he contracted while on the job. As a direct result of his lack of treatment, Phil suffered additional symptoms, exclusively attributed to Lyme disease which he had not formerly experienced. This physical downward spiral continued as stress mounted with the ongoing case against his compensation carrier.
The matter was again pursued in appeal on December 8th, 2005 before the Full Commission who unanimously upheld the prior landmark decision in favor of Wood. However, the case did not end at this point. Canal Wood LLC and Liberty Mutual submitted a further appeal, which caused a significant delay resulting in an Appellate Panel Review on June 27, 2006. The decision soundly affirmed previous judgments favoring Phil. Therefore, an order to uphold the previous ruling was filed on September 19, 2006. This matter was doggedly appealed again, despite prior losses by the defendant insurance carrier and "oral arguments were heard on May 21, 2007" in the Court of Common Pleas for the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Justice from the bench was served by a final judgment entered in favor of the Plaintiff, Phil Wood on June 19, 2007. This was exactly nine months to the date of the earlier Appellate Panel Decision which upheld the previous precedent rulings in favor of Mr. Wood. His case is now the precedent-setting case in South Carolina where Workers' Compensation was awarded for the disabilities that ensued strictly as a result of chronic Lyme disease. The judge's ruling holds significant weight for those who suffer from chronic Lyme, as it validates the need for continued treatment for this complex disease. The defendant Worker's Compensation carrier, Liberty Mutual, did not appeal the decision, yet irresponsibly neglected to act on behalf of Wood, despite the outcome of the Judge's order. Subsequently, Liberty Mutual was in derogation of the Order, yet was not penalized for this flagrant disregard of the final ruling issued. Curiously, no punitive damages were sought by the plaintiff's attorney.
On January 4, 2008, a "settlement" was reached. The plaintiff's attorney at long last purportedly prevailed against the obstinate insurer and gained weekly compensation plus associated medical coverage and prescription costs which fall within the scope of Lyme disease symptomatology. Compensation commenced for Phil Wood beginning in February 2008. This "settlement" occurred four lengthy years after Phil's initial filing of his Form 50 in December of 2004. Currently, Phil is only receiving weekly compensation for living and has not received medical coverage, nor has he received coverage for his prescriptions. The fight is not over. Phil is being followed and taped by investigators for Liberty Mutual. The insurer appears to be pursuing any approach to cease paying for Wood's weekly compensation.
Not only was he struggling with Liberty Mutual, but Phil was besieged by his own employer. Prior to the judge's final decision in June of 2007, Canal Wood LLC unexpectedly terminated Phil's employment without cause two months earlier in April of that year. Owing directly to having contracted Lyme disease and during the course of discharging his employment duties, Phil Wood's job as a timber buyer was abruptly terminated. Phil was working under special provisions, while under the watchful care of his physician. He did not receive prior notice, nor was Mr. Wood written up for defects in his job performance. He was ordered to immediately surrender the company truck, cell phone, gasoline card and office keys in his possession. As a result of being wrongfully dismissed from employment, Mr. Wood lost his health insurance benefits, vacation pay, and sick pay while seeking remedy with his disability insurer. No severance pay was offered and no compensation for sick time or vacation pay was given to Mr. Wood. A suit for wrongful dismissal will be pursued.
