Court Rulings

WestPoint Home (WestPoint) appeals an order of the circuit court finding the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) could indefinitely retain the $1.8 million WestPoint deposited as security for potential workers' compensation claims filed by former employees after its predecessor corporation entered bankruptcy. On appeal, WestPoint argues the circuit court erred in finding (1) the Commission was justified in withdrawing the entire deposit and transferring it to an account with the State Treasurer even though the pending claims never equaled the total deposit amount and (2) the Commission could continue to retain the unused portion of the deposit indefinitely even though the statute of repose for new claims had expired. WestPoint also contends it was entitled to collect prejudgment interest. We reverse as to the first two issues and remand for further proceedings regarding the prejudgment interest issue.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT — CIV.R. 56 — AFFIDAVITS — BUSINESS RECORDS — EVID.R. 803(6) — PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE: Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on its action on account where the affidavit and evidence attached to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment were inadmissible. The trial court abused its discretion when it considered the affidavit and evidence attached to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment because the affidavit did not cite the affiant's personal knowledge as a basis for the statements in the affidavit and the affiant's job title does not create an inference that the affiant had personal knowledge of either plaintiff's record-keeping system or documents allegedly showing defendant's outstanding balance.

¶0 Plaintiff sued her former employer, alleging she was terminated because of her mental and physical disabilities. Her sole legal claim was for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that the common law claim was prohibited/preempted by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act. The trial judge granted the motion. Plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment order. Subsequently, the original judge issued an order disqualifying herself. Thereafter, the newly assigned judge granted Plaintiff's motion to vacate the order sustaining summary adjudication. Defendants appealed the order vacating summary judgment, an interlocutory order appealable by right. We retained the appeal and now reverse, remanding with instructions to reinstate the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants.