Case Name: Henry B. AUTREY, Jr., Appellant, v. NORTH BROTHERS, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Carrier, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1985-04-03
Citations: 285 S.C. 121
Docket Number: 22274
Parties: Henry B. AUTREY, Jr., Appellant, v. NORTH BROTHERS, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Carrier, Respondents.
Judges: Harwell, and Chandler, JJ., and Alexander M. Sanders, Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 285
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
22274
Henry B. AUTREY, Jr., Appellant, v. NORTH BROTHERS, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Carrier, Respondents.
(328 S. E. (2d) 624)
Supreme Court
Kay Gorenflo Hearn, of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn & Hearn, Loris, Thomas H. Hart, III, of Blatt & Fales, Barnwell, and Isadore E. Lourie, of Lourie, Barrett, Curlee, Swerling & Popowski, Columbia, for appellant.
William W. Watkins, Columbia, for respondents, UAC and North Brothers.
William Pope, of Robinson, McFadden, Moore, Pope, Williams, Taylor & Brailsford, Columbia, for respondent, Employers Ins. of Wausau.
Heard Feb. 5, 1985.
Decided April 3, 1985.

Opinion:
Gregory, Justice:
This consolidated appeal presents the issue of whether the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to approve a third party settlement under S. C. Code Ann. § 42-1-560(f) when the petitioning employees have no present disability compensable under the Occupational Disease Act. The Commission ruled there was not jurisdiction, and the employees appeal. We dismiss.
In a related case before this Court, Talley v. John-Mansfield, et al., 328 S. E. (2d) 621 (1985), we determined that refusal to grant a stay of the third party actions was an abuse of discretion. Since a stay has been ordered, the present dispute is now moot.
Appeal dismissed.
Harwell, and Chandler, JJ., and Alexander M. Sanders, Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concur.
Littlejohn, C. J., dissenting.
At oral argument, counsel for appellants stated that a grant of relief in either this case or Talley, would protect appellants' interest in both matters.