Pringle v. Builders Transport

381 S.E.2d 731, 298 S.C. 494, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 142
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 3, 1989
Docket23042
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 381 S.E.2d 731 (Pringle v. Builders Transport) 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
Pringle v. Builders Transport, 381 S.E.2d 731, 298 S.C. 494, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 142 (S.C. 1989).

Opinion

Gregory, Chief Justice:

This is a workers’ compensation case. The circuit court granted respondents’, motion to amend their notice of appeal and denied appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse.

Respondents appealed to circuit court from an order of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission by timely filing and serving a purported notice of appeal. See S. C. Code Ann. § l-23-380(b) (1986). The notice, however, failed to state the grounds or errors of law in support of the appeal. After the time for appeal had expired, appellant moved to dismiss. The trial judge denied appellant’s motion and permitted respondents to amend their notice.

A petition for circuit court review pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) must direct the court’s attention to the abuse allegedly committed below, including a distinct and specific statement of the rulings of which appellant complains. Smith v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, 284 S. C. 469, 327 S. E. (2d) 348 (1985). The circuit court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal if the notice is insufficient. Id. Moreover, the policy of liberally allowing amendment of pleadings does not apply *496 to amendment of a notice of appeal requested after expiration of the thirty-day statutory period for filing the appeal. Id.

Respondent argues the appeals provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1 is controlling rather than the APA and therefore his original notice of appeal was sufficient. This is incorrect. Where provisions of the APA and the Workers’ Compensation Act conflict, the APA controls. Williams v. South Carolina Department of Wildlife, 295 S. C. 98, 367 S. E. (2d) 418 (1987).

Accordingly, the order of the circuit court is

Reversed.

Harwell, Chandler, Finney and Toal, JJ., concur.
1

S. C. Code Ann. § 42-17-60 (1976). This provision does not require that the notice of appeal state the grounds of the appeal or the alleged errors of law.

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

Related

Wofford v. City of Spartanburg
763 S.E.2d 53 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2014)
Kiawah Property Owners Group v. Public Service Commission
597 S.E.2d 145 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2004)
McGee v. Sovran Construction Company
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2003
Dorman v. South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control
565 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
Dorman v. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENV.
565 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
Breeden v. TCW, Inc./Tennessee Express
546 S.E.2d 657 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2001)
Porter v. South Carolina Public Service Commission
493 S.E.2d 92 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)
Kiawah Resort Associates v. South Carolina Tax Commission
458 S.E.2d 542 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1995)
Solomon v. W.B. Easton, Inc.
415 S.E.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
381 S.E.2d 731, 298 S.C. 494, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pringle-v-builders-transport-sc-1989.