UP-119 - Powell v. Petsmart

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Denica Powell, Appellant, v. Petsmart, Inc., and Phoenix Insurance Co., Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2014-000930 Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-119 Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 11, 2015 DISMISSED Gene McCain Connell, Jr., of Kelaher Connell & Connor, PC, of Surfside Beach, for Appellant. John Davis Stroud and Frank Reid Warder, Jr., both of Warder Law Firm, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380 (Supp. 2014) ("A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the agency and who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review pursuant to this article and Article 1. This section does not limit utilization of or the scope of judicial review available under other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy."); Price v. Peachtree Elec. Servs., Inc., 405 S.C. 455, 457, 748 S.E.2d 229, 230 (2013) ("An agency decision that does not decide the merits of a contested case is not a final agency decision subject to judicial review." (citing Bone v. U.S. Food Serv., 404 S.C. 67, 73, 744 S.E.2d 552, 556 (2013))); id. (holding an order from the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission remanding the case to the single commissioner for further determination of benefits was not immediately appealable under section 1-23-380). DISMISSED.1 THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.