WorkersCompensation.com: Meg Donahue on Brailey v. Michelin North America

Overview

In a third article of a series published on WorkersCompensation.com, HBS Partner Margaret “Meg” Donahue provides South Carolina case law updates related to workers’ compensation. In this series, Meg addresses many questions facing the state’s appellate courts, as well as explaining the rulings and the impact of their subsequent precedent for employers and carriers going forward.

This article discusses the South Carolina Supreme Court case, Brailey v. Michelin North America. “This case involves a back injury, and for which several defenses were raised, but the primary issue covered in the appeal decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court was that of fraud in the application for employment (aka fraud in the inducement of employment),” said Meg.

“To best ensure that candidates capable of safely performing a job are hired and to have a chance of a reasonable defense under Cooper if the situation arises, employers should include or attach a detailed job description with essential physical demands to job postings and applications with an attestation that the candidate has read and is capable of performing the essential functions of that position.”

You may read the full article on the WorkersCompensation.com website.

About WorkersCompensation.com

WorkersCompensation.com is the nation’s largest, most visited and most trusted source of essential services and information for the workers’ compensation community. They offer the latest news, event calendars, state rule and statute updates, as well as numerous other services built to help thousands of workers’ compensation professionals excel at their jobs every single day.

Disclaimer

This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Hall Booth Smith, P.C. and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.