Stephen Evans v. Nan-Ya Plastics Corporation ( 2022 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Ex Parte: C. Daniel Vega of Chappell, Smith & Arden,
P.A., Appellant,
v.
Kevin M. Barth of Barth, Ballenger & Lewis LLP,
Respondent,
In Re: Stephen Evans, Employee, Claimant,
v.
Nan-ya Plastics Corp. America, Employer, and New
Hampshire Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants.
Appellate Case No. 2020-000053
Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-329
Submitted July 27, 2022 – Filed August 10, 2022
AFFIRMED
Desa Ballard and Harvey M. Watson, III, both of Ballard
& Watson, Attorneys at Law, of West Columbia, for
Appellant.
Derrick Le'Van Williams and Andrea Culler Roche, both
of Mickle & Bass, LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: C. Daniel Vega appeals an order from the Appellate Panel of the
Workers' Compensation Commission, which granted Kevin M. Barth's motion for
attorney's fees.1 On appeal, Vega argues the Appellate Panel erred by granting
attorney's fees to Barth because Barth failed to provide sufficient evidence and
documentation of an enforceable charging lien under which he could recover.
We find the Appellate Panel did not err by granting Barth's motion for attorney's
fees. See Bass v. Isochem, 365 S.C. 454, 467, 617 S.E.2d 369, 376 (Ct. App. 2005)
("A reviewing court may reverse or modify a decision of an agency if the findings,
inferences, conclusions, or decisions of that agency are 'clearly erroneous in view
of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record." (quoting
Bursey v. South Carolina Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 360 S.C. 135, 141, 600
S.E.2d 80, 84 (Ct. App. 2004))); id. ("Under the scope of review established in the
APA, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Appellate Panel as
to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but may reverse where the
decision is affected by an error of law."). First, although Barth filed a motion
entitled "Motion to Enforce Charging Lien" rather than the Form 61 required by
the Workers' Compensation Regulations, we find Barth substantially complied
with the regulations such that the Workers' Compensation Commission could
approve Barth's fees. Barth's motion included the settlement amount offered to
claimant during Barth's representation and the contract between himself and
claimant that set forth the contingency fee agreement. See S.C. Code Ann.
§ 42-15-90(A) (2015) ("Attorney's fees . . . under this title are subject to the
approval of the commission . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-1204(A) (2012) ("An
attorney shall report and obtain approval of any fee for services rendered in a
worker's compensation claim . . . ."); S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-201(A) (Supp.
2021) ("These regulations are entitled to a liberal construction in the furtherance of
the purpose for which the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Law is
intended."); Brown v. Baby Girl Harper, 410 S.C. 446, 453 n.6, 766 S.E.2d 375,
379 n.6 (2014) ("Substantial compliance has been defined as 'compliance in respect
to the essential matters necessary to assure every reasonable objective of the
1
Initially, Barth represented the claimant, Stephen Evans, in his workers'
compensation claim. Evans later terminated Barth's representation and hired Vega,
who also filed for attorney's fees, asserting he was the sole attorney entitled to a
percentage of the full settlement amount.
statute.'" (quoting Orr v. Heiman, 12 P.3d 387, 389 (Kan. 2000))); Jordan v.
Hartford Fin. Grp., Inc., 435 S.C. 501, 507, 868 S.E.2d 400, 403 (Ct. App. 2021)
("The law, however, is not merely an exercise of judicial power through the
mechanical manipulation of rules; it is an organic body of principles rooted in
reason, ethics, and human experience. The reason for a rule must control the
application of the rule[.]" (quoting S.C. Ins. Co. v. James C. Greene & Co., 290
S.C. 171, 188, 348 S.E.2d 617, 626 (Ct. App. 1986))). Second, there is substantial
evidence to support the Appellate Panel's finding that Barth represented the
claimant on April 6, 2016, when defense counsel made the $100,000 settlement
offer. See Hutson v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 399 S.C. 381, 387, 732 S.E.2d 500,
503 (2012) (stating substantial evidence is evidence that, when considering the
record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion the
Appellate Panel reached). Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Panel's ruling.
AFFIRMED. 2
THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.