Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc.

750 S.E.2d 90, 406 S.C. 210, 2013 WL 5761633, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 278
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 23, 2013
DocketAppellate Case No.2012-212027; No. 27325
StatusPublished

This text of 750 S.E.2d 90 (Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc., 750 S.E.2d 90, 406 S.C. 210, 2013 WL 5761633, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 278 (S.C. 2013).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners-respondents (Martint) and respondent-petitioner (Jervey) each seek a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision in Jervey v. Martint Envtl., Inc., 896 S.C. 442, 721 S.E.2d 469 (Ct.App.2012). Martint maintains the Court of Appeals erred in holding Martint’s claim that Jervey’s injuries were not compensable was barred by the doctrines of laches and waiver because Martint did not assert compensability as a defense for more than 450 days after it began paying benefits. Jervey maintains the Court of Appeals erred in holding S.C.Code Ann. § 42-9-260 (Supp.2012) did not operate as a statute of limitations to bar Martint’s belated denial of compensability. Specifically, Jervey maintains section 42-9-260 provides that an employer may only raise compensability as a defense within the first 150 days after an injury if the employer begins paying benefits.

We deny Martint’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision as to the issues of laches and waiver. In light of the denial of Martint’s petition for a writ of certiorari, we find it is unnecessary to address the issues raised by Jervey. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding an appellate court need not address any remaining issues if the disposition of a prior issue is dispositive). Nevertheless, because determination as to the issues of laches and waiver is dispositive, we grant Jervey’s petition for a writ of certiorari, dispense with further briefing, and vacate that portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion addressing the import of section 42-9-260.

VACATE IN PART

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, and HEARN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.
518 S.E.2d 591 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
Jervey v. Martint Environmental, Inc.
721 S.E.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
750 S.E.2d 90, 406 S.C. 210, 2013 WL 5761633, 2013 S.C. LEXIS 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jervey-v-martint-environmental-inc-sc-2013.