Loading
Logistics
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Ergonomics, Workers Compensation, Occupational And Environmental Medicine, Spine, Back Pain, Biomechanics, Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation, Workplace Safety
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
South Carolina State
Brooks v. Benore Logistics Systems, Inc., 442 S.C. 462, 900 S.E.2d 436 (S.C. 2024), involved a workers' compensation dispute concerning repetitive workplace activities, ergonomics evidence, and a lower-back injury. Dale Brooks worked as a switcher truck operator for Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. at a BMW manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina. His duties involved frequently climbing, bending, stooping, and connecting trailers throughout 12-hour shifts. After developing persistent lower-back pain and symptoms affecting his right leg, Brooks sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming his injury resulted from repeated physical activities at work.
Benore Logistics and its workers' compensation carrier, Great American Alliance Insurance Company, challenged the claim using an ergonomics assessment that found no elevated risk of lower-back musculoskeletal disorders. The dispute centered on whether that assessment could support rejecting medical evidence connecting Brooks' injury to his employment under South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172. On April 10, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in Brooks' favor, affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified and remanding the case for calculation of workers' compensation benefits.
Dale Brooks began working for Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. in June 2016 at a shipping yard serving BMW's manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina. He operated a switcher truck to transport semitruck trailers and ocean freight containers between locations within the yard. During a typical 12-hour shift, Brooks moved approximately 45 to 60 trailers, repeatedly climbing truck steps, bending, stooping, and connecting equipment. Each trailer movement required a similar sequence of activities, generally repeated every 12 to 15 minutes.
Around January 3, 2017, Brooks began experiencing burning sensations in his legs, followed by lower-back pain that extended into his right leg. His discomfort generally developed toward the end of his work shifts and gradually became more severe. On January 17, he experienced sharper back pain while climbing the steps to his switcher truck's rear platform. Brooks initially associated the discomfort with influenza and did not immediately report a workplace injury. After his flu symptoms subsided but the pain continued, he informed his supervisor that he had been injured while working.
Brooks sought emergency medical treatment on January 20, 2017, reporting persistent lower-back pain associated with repeatedly entering and exiting trucks at work. A physical examination identified tenderness, pain, and reduced range of motion, while lumbar X-rays showed decreased disc-space height at L4-L5 and L5-S1, consistent with degenerative disc disease. He subsequently received treatment from employer-approved physician Dr. Wes Merriwether, who diagnosed a right S1 sprain and lumbar strain. Dr. Merriwether imposed restrictions on repetitive bending, stooping, and lifting, referred Brooks for physical therapy, and later ordered an MRI.
Following Brooks' appointment, Benore Logistics' claims representative notified Dr. Merriwether that the workers' compensation claim had been denied and instructed him to discontinue treatment. As a result, the MRI and follow-up care ordered by Dr. Merriwether did not proceed under his supervision. His records also documented preexisting numbness and tingling in both thighs of unknown duration.
On May 1, 2017, Brooks consulted Dr. Eric Loudermilk for continued lower-back pain and symptoms extending into his right leg. A lumbar MRI, identified in a medical questionnaire as dated June 27, 2017, showed an L4-L5 disc protrusion irritating a spinal nerve root. Dr. Loudermilk diagnosed lower-back pain with right lower-extremity radiculopathy associated with the disc protrusion and recommended nonsurgical treatment.
After reviewing the medical findings and Brooks' employment activities, Dr. Loudermilk provided written opinions connecting the lumbar condition to the repeated movements required by his job. He stated those conclusions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, addressing both the diagnosed injury and the physical activities involved in switcher truck operations.
Benore Logistics retained ergonomics expert Glen Adams to assess physical demands and potential musculoskeletal risk factors associated with switcher truck operations. Adams visited the BMW shipping yard and observed another employee performing the duties rather than examining Brooks directly. His report concluded that the observed activities did not present elevated risks for developing lower-back musculoskeletal disorders.
The assessment addressed general ergonomic exposure and statistical risk. It did not involve an individualized medical evaluation of Brooks' lumbar condition or direct observation of the more physically demanding work involved in moving ocean freight containers. Although the report described the sequence of tasks performed by a switcher truck operator, it did not conclude that the position involved nonrepetitive duties.
Brooks' attorney later submitted the report to Dr. Loudermilk for review. After considering its findings, Dr. Loudermilk maintained his medical opinion that Brooks' repetitive workplace activities caused his lumbar injury.
Brooks pursued benefits under South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172, presenting his employment history, medical records, testimony, and Dr. Loudermilk's written causation opinion. A single commissioner found that Brooks had established a compensable repetitive trauma injury and awarded benefits. Benore Logistics appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission's appellate panel, which reversed the award after concluding that the evidence did not establish the repetitive nature of Brooks' work.
The appellate panel relied on the employer's ergonomics assessment and questioned Dr. Loudermilk's medical causation findings. It also faulted Brooks for not presenting ergonomics expert evidence supporting the repetitive nature of his employment. Brooks appealed the denial to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the Commission's decision on January 19, 2022, in Brooks v. Benore Logistics System, Inc., 437 S.C. 376, 879 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2022). The court rejected the Commission's interpretation of Section 42-1-172 as imposing a separate requirement to establish that Brooks' employment was repetitive. It reasoned that the Commission's approach placed an additional burden on claimants beyond the statutory medical causation requirement.
The appellate court also found that the Commission improperly discounted Dr. Loudermilk's opinion despite his review of the employer's ergonomics report. It concluded that the assessment could not replace the qualifying medical evidence required to establish causation and reversed the denial of benefits. The case was remanded for calculation of compensation. The South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently disagreed with the appellate court's interpretation of the statutory requirements but upheld the judgment in Brooks' favor.
The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 15, 2023, after granting review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Benore Logistics challenged the appellate court's interpretation of Section 42-1-172, arguing that claimants must establish both the repetitive nature of their employment and a medical connection between those activities and the alleged injury.
The justices also considered whether the Commission's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether Glen Adams' ergonomics report could be used to challenge medical causation. During oral arguments, the employer acknowledged that the report was irrelevant and inadmissible on the issue of medical causation.
On April 10, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified, holding that Brooks had established a compensable repetitive trauma injury. The court agreed with Benore Logistics that Section 42-1-172 requires a two-part analysis: determining whether an employee's work activities are repetitive and whether qualifying medical evidence establishes that those activities caused the injury.
Applying the first requirement, the justices found that the Commission's determination that Brooks' duties were not repetitive lacked substantial evidentiary support. The employer's job description, Brooks' testimony, and the ergonomics report documented a recurring sequence of tasks performed throughout his shifts. The assessment itself identified 18 individual tasks involved in switching a trailer and did not dispute their repetitive nature.
On medical causation, the Supreme Court held that nonmedical ergonomics evidence was inadmissible to establish or disprove whether repetitive workplace activities caused Brooks' diagnosed injury. Glen Adams' statistical risk assessment did not qualify as medical evidence under Section 42-1-172. Dr. Loudermilk's medical opinion, which remained uncontroverted by competent medical causation evidence, could not properly be rejected on the grounds relied upon by the Commission.
The justices concluded that Brooks had satisfied both statutory requirements as a matter of law. The case was returned to the Workers' Compensation Commission's appellate panel solely for calculation of the benefits owed.
Court:
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Case Name:
Brooks v. Benore Logistics Systems, Inc.
Dale Brooks, a switcher truck operator for Benore Logistics Systems, Inc., developed a lower-back injury after repeatedly climbing, bending, and moving trailers during 12-hour shifts at a BMW facility in South Carolina.
The workers' compensation dispute focused on whether Brooks' job duties were repetitive and whether medical evidence established a causal connection between those activities and his lumbar injury.
Ergonomics expert Glen Adams assessed the physical demands of switcher truck operations and reported no elevated risk of lower-back musculoskeletal disorders, while Dr. Eric Loudermilk provided medical opinions linking Brooks' injury to his work activities.
On April 10, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that nonmedical ergonomics evidence could not establish or disprove medical causation under South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified, determined that Brooks had established a compensable repetitive trauma injury, and remanded the case for calculation of workers' compensation benefits.
Repetitive Stress Injury
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Back Injury
Workers Compensation Insurance
Occupational And Environmental Health
Job Analysis
Workplace Accidents
Brooks v. Benore Logistics Systems, Inc., 442 S.C. 462, 900 S.E.2d 436 (S.C. 2024), involved a workers' compensation dispute concerning repetitive workplace activities, ergonomics evidence, and a lower-back injury. Dale Brooks worked as a switcher truck operator for Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. at a BMW manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina. His duties involved frequently climbing, bending, stooping, and connecting trailers throughout 12-hour shifts. After developing persistent lower-back pain and symptoms affecting his right leg, Brooks sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming his injury resulted from repeated physical activities at work.
Benore Logistics and its workers' compensation carrier, Great American Alliance Insurance Company, challenged the claim using an ergonomics assessment that found no elevated risk of lower-back musculoskeletal disorders. The dispute centered on whether that assessment could support rejecting medical evidence connecting Brooks' injury to his employment under South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172. On April 10, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled in Brooks' favor, affirming the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified and remanding the case for calculation of workers' compensation benefits.
Dale Brooks began working for Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. in June 2016 at a shipping yard serving BMW's manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina. He operated a switcher truck to transport semitruck trailers and ocean freight containers between locations within the yard. During a typical 12-hour shift, Brooks moved approximately 45 to 60 trailers, repeatedly climbing truck steps, bending, stooping, and connecting equipment. Each trailer movement required a similar sequence of activities, generally repeated every 12 to 15 minutes.
Around January 3, 2017, Brooks began experiencing burning sensations in his legs, followed by lower-back pain that extended into his right leg. His discomfort generally developed toward the end of his work shifts and gradually became more severe. On January 17, he experienced sharper back pain while climbing the steps to his switcher truck's rear platform. Brooks initially associated the discomfort with influenza and did not immediately report a workplace injury. After his flu symptoms subsided but the pain continued, he informed his supervisor that he had been injured while working.
Brooks sought emergency medical treatment on January 20, 2017, reporting persistent lower-back pain associated with repeatedly entering and exiting trucks at work. A physical examination identified tenderness, pain, and reduced range of motion, while lumbar X-rays showed decreased disc-space height at L4-L5 and L5-S1, consistent with degenerative disc disease. He subsequently received treatment from employer-approved physician Dr. Wes Merriwether, who diagnosed a right S1 sprain and lumbar strain. Dr. Merriwether imposed restrictions on repetitive bending, stooping, and lifting, referred Brooks for physical therapy, and later ordered an MRI.
Following Brooks' appointment, Benore Logistics' claims representative notified Dr. Merriwether that the workers' compensation claim had been denied and instructed him to discontinue treatment. As a result, the MRI and follow-up care ordered by Dr. Merriwether did not proceed under his supervision. His records also documented preexisting numbness and tingling in both thighs of unknown duration.
On May 1, 2017, Brooks consulted Dr. Eric Loudermilk for continued lower-back pain and symptoms extending into his right leg. A lumbar MRI, identified in a medical questionnaire as dated June 27, 2017, showed an L4-L5 disc protrusion irritating a spinal nerve root. Dr. Loudermilk diagnosed lower-back pain with right lower-extremity radiculopathy associated with the disc protrusion and recommended nonsurgical treatment.
After reviewing the medical findings and Brooks' employment activities, Dr. Loudermilk provided written opinions connecting the lumbar condition to the repeated movements required by his job. He stated those conclusions to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, addressing both the diagnosed injury and the physical activities involved in switcher truck operations.
Benore Logistics retained ergonomics expert Glen Adams to assess physical demands and potential musculoskeletal risk factors associated with switcher truck operations. Adams visited the BMW shipping yard and observed another employee performing the duties rather than examining Brooks directly. His report concluded that the observed activities did not present elevated risks for developing lower-back musculoskeletal disorders.
The assessment addressed general ergonomic exposure and statistical risk. It did not involve an individualized medical evaluation of Brooks' lumbar condition or direct observation of the more physically demanding work involved in moving ocean freight containers. Although the report described the sequence of tasks performed by a switcher truck operator, it did not conclude that the position involved nonrepetitive duties.
Brooks' attorney later submitted the report to Dr. Loudermilk for review. After considering its findings, Dr. Loudermilk maintained his medical opinion that Brooks' repetitive workplace activities caused his lumbar injury.
Brooks pursued benefits under South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172, presenting his employment history, medical records, testimony, and Dr. Loudermilk's written causation opinion. A single commissioner found that Brooks had established a compensable repetitive trauma injury and awarded benefits. Benore Logistics appealed to the Workers' Compensation Commission's appellate panel, which reversed the award after concluding that the evidence did not establish the repetitive nature of Brooks' work.
The appellate panel relied on the employer's ergonomics assessment and questioned Dr. Loudermilk's medical causation findings. It also faulted Brooks for not presenting ergonomics expert evidence supporting the repetitive nature of his employment. Brooks appealed the denial to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the Commission's decision on January 19, 2022, in Brooks v. Benore Logistics System, Inc., 437 S.C. 376, 879 S.E.2d 1 (Ct. App. 2022). The court rejected the Commission's interpretation of Section 42-1-172 as imposing a separate requirement to establish that Brooks' employment was repetitive. It reasoned that the Commission's approach placed an additional burden on claimants beyond the statutory medical causation requirement.
The appellate court also found that the Commission improperly discounted Dr. Loudermilk's opinion despite his review of the employer's ergonomics report. It concluded that the assessment could not replace the qualifying medical evidence required to establish causation and reversed the denial of benefits. The case was remanded for calculation of compensation. The South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently disagreed with the appellate court's interpretation of the statutory requirements but upheld the judgment in Brooks' favor.
The South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments on November 15, 2023, after granting review of the Court of Appeals' decision. Benore Logistics challenged the appellate court's interpretation of Section 42-1-172, arguing that claimants must establish both the repetitive nature of their employment and a medical connection between those activities and the alleged injury.
The justices also considered whether the Commission's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether Glen Adams' ergonomics report could be used to challenge medical causation. During oral arguments, the employer acknowledged that the report was irrelevant and inadmissible on the issue of medical causation.
On April 10, 2024, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified, holding that Brooks had established a compensable repetitive trauma injury. The court agreed with Benore Logistics that Section 42-1-172 requires a two-part analysis: determining whether an employee's work activities are repetitive and whether qualifying medical evidence establishes that those activities caused the injury.
Applying the first requirement, the justices found that the Commission's determination that Brooks' duties were not repetitive lacked substantial evidentiary support. The employer's job description, Brooks' testimony, and the ergonomics report documented a recurring sequence of tasks performed throughout his shifts. The assessment itself identified 18 individual tasks involved in switching a trailer and did not dispute their repetitive nature.
On medical causation, the Supreme Court held that nonmedical ergonomics evidence was inadmissible to establish or disprove whether repetitive workplace activities caused Brooks' diagnosed injury. Glen Adams' statistical risk assessment did not qualify as medical evidence under Section 42-1-172. Dr. Loudermilk's medical opinion, which remained uncontroverted by competent medical causation evidence, could not properly be rejected on the grounds relied upon by the Commission.
The justices concluded that Brooks had satisfied both statutory requirements as a matter of law. The case was returned to the Workers' Compensation Commission's appellate panel solely for calculation of the benefits owed.
Ergonomics Expert Witness - Glen Adams - Defense
Glen Adams was retained by Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. to assess ergonomic risk factors associated with switcher truck operations. He observed another employee performing the position's duties and prepared a written report describing workplace movements and general musculoskeletal injury risks. The employer submitted his assessment during the workers' compensation proceedings, where it was used to challenge Brooks' claim.
Adams concluded that the observed activities did not present elevated risks for lower-back musculoskeletal disorders. His findings concerned workplace risk factors and statistical likelihood rather than an individualized medical diagnosis. The Supreme Court distinguished the report's description of job duties from its conclusions about medical causation.
Medical Causation Expert Witness - Dr. Eric Loudermilk - Plaintiff
Dr. Eric Loudermilk treated Brooks for lower-back pain and right-leg radiculopathy associated with an L4-L5 lumbar disc protrusion. He reviewed the medical findings and provided written opinions connecting the diagnosed condition to repeated climbing, bending, and other workplace activities. His responses to questions submitted by Brooks' attorney stated the causal relationship to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
Dr. Loudermilk also reviewed Glen Adams' ergonomics assessment and confirmed that its findings did not change his medical conclusions. His treatment records and written opinions were submitted as evidence supporting Brooks' workers' compensation claim.
Treating Physician - Dr. Wes Merriwether
Dr. Wes Merriwether evaluated Brooks following his January 2017 emergency treatment. He diagnosed a right S1 sprain and lumbar strain, documented symptoms affecting the lower extremities, and restricted activities involving repetitive bending, stooping, and lifting. He recommended physical therapy and ordered an MRI as part of Brooks' treatment.
Dr. Merriwether's records described the condition as a suspected work-related lumbar strain with sciatica. His planned follow-up care ended after the employer denied the workers' compensation claim and instructed him to discontinue treatment. His clinical findings were documented in the proceedings through medical records.
South Carolina's Two-Part Test for Repetitive Trauma Injuries
South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172 governs workers' compensation claims involving injuries that develop gradually through repeated workplace activities. The Supreme Court interpreted the statute as requiring two separate findings: that the claimant's employment involved repetitive tasks and that those tasks caused the alleged injury.
Section 42-1-160(F) provides the statutory context for identifying repeated employment activities, including similar tasks performed regularly or at frequent intervals over extended periods. The medical causal connection must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. These requirements address different questions: what the employee repeatedly did at work and whether those activities caused the diagnosed condition.
Workplace Evidence Establishing Repetitive Job Duties
The repetitive nature of employment can be established through employee testimony, job descriptions, and records describing routine work activities. In Brooks' case, the employer's own job description anticipated up to 50 to 60 trailer movements per shift, while the ergonomics report documented 18 individual tasks involved in each movement.
The Commission had authority to determine whether Brooks' employment was repetitive, but that determination had to be supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court found no evidentiary basis for classifying his regularly repeated tasks as nonrepetitive. It also rejected the suggestion that Brooks needed a separate ergonomics expert to establish the nature of his work.
Medical Causation and the Required Standard of Proof
Section 42-1-172 requires qualifying medical evidence demonstrating a direct causal relationship between repetitive workplace activities and an injury. The statute recognizes medical opinions or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, along with documents, records, and other materials offered by licensed and qualified medical physicians.
Dr. Loudermilk's written opinions connected Brooks' lumbar disc condition to his repeated work activities. The Commission could assess the credibility and weight of that evidence, including an uncontroverted medical opinion, but any decision to reject it needed a valid basis supported by the record. The Supreme Court found that the Commission's stated reasons were contradicted by the evidence, including Dr. Loudermilk's documented review of the ergonomics report.
The Limits of Ergonomics Evidence in Medical Causation
The Supreme Court addressed two distinct uses of ergonomics evidence. A workplace assessment may help describe the frequency, duration, and physical demands of a job. However, a nonmedical ergonomics report cannot establish or disprove medical causation under Section 42-1-172.
Glen Adams' report illustrated this distinction. Its description of switcher truck duties documented repeated physical movements, while its assessment of general musculoskeletal risk did not determine whether Brooks' activities medically caused his injury. The justices rejected the Commission's reliance on statistical probabilities as a substitute for the individualized medical causation evidence required by the statute.
Appellate Review and the Calculation of Workers' Compensation Benefits
The Workers' Compensation Commission serves as the factfinder in compensation disputes, and appellate courts ordinarily review its factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard. In Brooks' case, the Supreme Court found that the Commission's determination concerning repetitive duties lacked support in the record and that its causation analysis relied on inadmissible nonmedical evidence.
Because the record established both statutory elements of Brooks' claim, the justices did not return the case for another determination of compensability. Instead, they ordered a remand solely for calculation of workers' compensation benefits. The April 10, 2024 opinion established his entitlement to compensation but did not specify a final monetary award.
The South Carolina Supreme Court resolved Brooks' workers' compensation dispute after the Commission's appellate panel denied his repetitive trauma claim. Although the justices accepted the employer's interpretation that Section 42-1-172 requires proof of both repetitive job duties and medical causation, they found that the evidence satisfied both requirements. The documented sequence of trailer movements established the repetitive nature of Brooks' employment, while Dr. Loudermilk's medical findings supported the causal connection to his lumbar injury.
The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified on April 10, 2024. With the compensability dispute resolved in Brooks' favor, the remaining proceedings concerned calculation of the benefits owed by Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. and its workers' compensation carrier.
What is a switcher truck, and how was it used in Brooks v. Benore Logistics?
A switcher truck is a specialized vehicle used to move semitruck trailers and freight containers within shipping yards. Dale Brooks operated one at a BMW manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina, transporting trailers and ocean freight containers between designated locations. His work required repeated climbing, bending, and connecting equipment during 12-hour shifts.
What workplace activities were linked to Dale Brooks' injury?
Brooks' injury was linked to repeated climbing, bending, stooping, and entering and exiting his switcher truck. His duties generally involved 45 to 60 trailer movements per shift, and Dr. Eric Loudermilk concluded that the cumulative physical activities caused his lumbar condition.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the ergonomics report as medical causation evidence?
The Supreme Court rejected the report for medical causation purposes because it was prepared by a nonmedical expert and did not satisfy Section 42-1-172's medical evidence requirements. Glen Adams' assessment addressed general ergonomic risks rather than providing a qualifying medical opinion about the cause of Brooks' particular injury.
Is an ergonomics expert required to prove a repetitive trauma injury in South Carolina?
No. South Carolina law does not require an ergonomics expert to establish that an employee performs repetitive duties. Employee testimony, job descriptions, and other workplace records may establish repetitive activities, while qualifying medical evidence is required to prove the causal relationship between those activities and the injury.
What did Dale Brooks' June 27, 2017 lumbar MRI reveal?
Ergonomics Expert Witness - Glen Adams - Defense
Glen Adams was retained by Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. to assess ergonomic risk factors associated with switcher truck operations. He observed another employee performing the position's duties and prepared a written report describing workplace movements and general musculoskeletal injury risks. The employer submitted his assessment during the workers' compensation proceedings, where it was used to challenge Brooks' claim.
Adams concluded that the observed activities did not present elevated risks for lower-back musculoskeletal disorders. His findings concerned workplace risk factors and statistical likelihood rather than an individualized medical diagnosis. The Supreme Court distinguished the report's description of job duties from its conclusions about medical causation.
Medical Causation Expert Witness - Dr. Eric Loudermilk - Plaintiff
Dr. Eric Loudermilk treated Brooks for lower-back pain and right-leg radiculopathy associated with an L4-L5 lumbar disc protrusion. He reviewed the medical findings and provided written opinions connecting the diagnosed condition to repeated climbing, bending, and other workplace activities. His responses to questions submitted by Brooks' attorney stated the causal relationship to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.
Dr. Loudermilk also reviewed Glen Adams' ergonomics assessment and confirmed that its findings did not change his medical conclusions. His treatment records and written opinions were submitted as evidence supporting Brooks' workers' compensation claim.
Treating Physician - Dr. Wes Merriwether
Dr. Wes Merriwether evaluated Brooks following his January 2017 emergency treatment. He diagnosed a right S1 sprain and lumbar strain, documented symptoms affecting the lower extremities, and restricted activities involving repetitive bending, stooping, and lifting. He recommended physical therapy and ordered an MRI as part of Brooks' treatment.
Dr. Merriwether's records described the condition as a suspected work-related lumbar strain with sciatica. His planned follow-up care ended after the employer denied the workers' compensation claim and instructed him to discontinue treatment. His clinical findings were documented in the proceedings through medical records.
South Carolina's Two-Part Test for Repetitive Trauma Injuries
South Carolina Code Section 42-1-172 governs workers' compensation claims involving injuries that develop gradually through repeated workplace activities. The Supreme Court interpreted the statute as requiring two separate findings: that the claimant's employment involved repetitive tasks and that those tasks caused the alleged injury.
Section 42-1-160(F) provides the statutory context for identifying repeated employment activities, including similar tasks performed regularly or at frequent intervals over extended periods. The medical causal connection must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. These requirements address different questions: what the employee repeatedly did at work and whether those activities caused the diagnosed condition.
Workplace Evidence Establishing Repetitive Job Duties
The repetitive nature of employment can be established through employee testimony, job descriptions, and records describing routine work activities. In Brooks' case, the employer's own job description anticipated up to 50 to 60 trailer movements per shift, while the ergonomics report documented 18 individual tasks involved in each movement.
The Commission had authority to determine whether Brooks' employment was repetitive, but that determination had to be supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court found no evidentiary basis for classifying his regularly repeated tasks as nonrepetitive. It also rejected the suggestion that Brooks needed a separate ergonomics expert to establish the nature of his work.
Medical Causation and the Required Standard of Proof
Section 42-1-172 requires qualifying medical evidence demonstrating a direct causal relationship between repetitive workplace activities and an injury. The statute recognizes medical opinions or testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, along with documents, records, and other materials offered by licensed and qualified medical physicians.
Dr. Loudermilk's written opinions connected Brooks' lumbar disc condition to his repeated work activities. The Commission could assess the credibility and weight of that evidence, including an uncontroverted medical opinion, but any decision to reject it needed a valid basis supported by the record. The Supreme Court found that the Commission's stated reasons were contradicted by the evidence, including Dr. Loudermilk's documented review of the ergonomics report.
The Limits of Ergonomics Evidence in Medical Causation
The Supreme Court addressed two distinct uses of ergonomics evidence. A workplace assessment may help describe the frequency, duration, and physical demands of a job. However, a nonmedical ergonomics report cannot establish or disprove medical causation under Section 42-1-172.
Glen Adams' report illustrated this distinction. Its description of switcher truck duties documented repeated physical movements, while its assessment of general musculoskeletal risk did not determine whether Brooks' activities medically caused his injury. The justices rejected the Commission's reliance on statistical probabilities as a substitute for the individualized medical causation evidence required by the statute.
Appellate Review and the Calculation of Workers' Compensation Benefits
The Workers' Compensation Commission serves as the factfinder in compensation disputes, and appellate courts ordinarily review its factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard. In Brooks' case, the Supreme Court found that the Commission's determination concerning repetitive duties lacked support in the record and that its causation analysis relied on inadmissible nonmedical evidence.
Because the record established both statutory elements of Brooks' claim, the justices did not return the case for another determination of compensability. Instead, they ordered a remand solely for calculation of workers' compensation benefits. The April 10, 2024 opinion established his entitlement to compensation but did not specify a final monetary award.
The South Carolina Supreme Court resolved Brooks' workers' compensation dispute after the Commission's appellate panel denied his repetitive trauma claim. Although the justices accepted the employer's interpretation that Section 42-1-172 requires proof of both repetitive job duties and medical causation, they found that the evidence satisfied both requirements. The documented sequence of trailer movements established the repetitive nature of Brooks' employment, while Dr. Loudermilk's medical findings supported the causal connection to his lumbar injury.
The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment as modified on April 10, 2024. With the compensability dispute resolved in Brooks' favor, the remaining proceedings concerned calculation of the benefits owed by Benore Logistics Systems, Inc. and its workers' compensation carrier.
What is a switcher truck, and how was it used in Brooks v. Benore Logistics?
A switcher truck is a specialized vehicle used to move semitruck trailers and freight containers within shipping yards. Dale Brooks operated one at a BMW manufacturing facility in Greer, South Carolina, transporting trailers and ocean freight containers between designated locations. His work required repeated climbing, bending, and connecting equipment during 12-hour shifts.
What workplace activities were linked to Dale Brooks' injury?
Brooks' injury was linked to repeated climbing, bending, stooping, and entering and exiting his switcher truck. His duties generally involved 45 to 60 trailer movements per shift, and Dr. Eric Loudermilk concluded that the cumulative physical activities caused his lumbar condition.
Why did the Supreme Court reject the ergonomics report as medical causation evidence?
The Supreme Court rejected the report for medical causation purposes because it was prepared by a nonmedical expert and did not satisfy Section 42-1-172's medical evidence requirements. Glen Adams' assessment addressed general ergonomic risks rather than providing a qualifying medical opinion about the cause of Brooks' particular injury.
Is an ergonomics expert required to prove a repetitive trauma injury in South Carolina?
No. South Carolina law does not require an ergonomics expert to establish that an employee performs repetitive duties. Employee testimony, job descriptions, and other workplace records may establish repetitive activities, while qualifying medical evidence is required to prove the causal relationship between those activities and the injury.
What did Dale Brooks' June 27, 2017 lumbar MRI reveal?
The lumbar MRI, identified in the court record as dated June 27, 2017, showed an L4-L5 disc protrusion irritating a spinal nerve root. Dr. Eric Loudermilk diagnosed lower-back pain with right lower-extremity radiculopathy associated with the disc condition. His written medical opinions connected Brooks' lumbar injury to the repeated physical activities required by his employment.
Repetitive Stress Injury
Musculoskeletal Disorders
Back Injury
Workers Compensation Insurance
Occupational And Environmental Health
Job Analysis
Workplace Accidents
The lumbar MRI, identified in the court record as dated June 27, 2017, showed an L4-L5 disc protrusion irritating a spinal nerve root. Dr. Eric Loudermilk diagnosed lower-back pain with right lower-extremity radiculopathy associated with the disc condition. His written medical opinions connected Brooks' lumbar injury to the repeated physical activities required by his employment.