Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-133 - Palmer v. Henderson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Cheryl Vines Palmer and Carlton Palmer, Appellants,

v.

Crystal Henderson, Respondent.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-133
Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 5, 2009   


AFFIRMED


William H. Ehlies, II, of Greenville, for Appellants.

Stanley T. Case, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Cheryl and Carlton Palmer appeal the circuit court’s order of dismissal of their causes of actions pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), SCRCP, against Crystal Henderson following a finding the Palmers’ claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act (the Act).  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-5-10 (1985) (stating a co-employee who negligently injures another employee while in the scope of employment is immune under the Act and cannot be held personally liable); Edens v. Bellini, 359 S.C. 433, 441-42, 597 S.E.2d 863, 867-68 (Ct. App. 2004) (holding the Act is the exclusive remedy for an employee’s work-related accident or injury, and the exclusivity provision precludes an employee from maintaining a tort action against an employer where the employee sustains a work-related injury); Strickland v. Galloway, 348 S.C. 644, 647, 560 S.E.2d 448, 449 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining the immunity is conferred not only on the direct employer, but also on co-employees).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.