Opinion ID: 2505482
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scrivener's Error Regarding Date of Accident

Text: Trotter next contends the Court of Appeals repeated a scrivener's error made by the commissioner regarding the date of the accident and asks this Court to correct the error or to grant her leave to petition the Commission for correction of the date. In her order, the commissioner stated in her Findings of Fact that (1) Trotter first experienced back pain in December 2004, (2) Trotter felt a pop in her back and had excruciating pain while turbulating at work on January 31, 2005, and (3) Trotter's injury occurred in 2005. All of these findings are supported by the evidence. Trotter points out, however, that in the Conclusions of Law portion of her order, the commissioner incorrectly states: That on or about December 31, 2004 Mrs. Trotter felt a pop in her back while working. Trotter asserts the December 31, 2004 date is incorrect as all parties concede Trotter was not even working that day, so it is obviously a scrivener's error. The Court of Appeals stated in its recitation of the facts that Trotter felt a pop in her back on January 31, 2005 while she was working. Trotter, 384 S.C. at 112, 681 S.E.2d at 38. It later quoted a passage from the commissioner's order that contained the December 31, 2004 date that Trotter contends is a scrivener's error. Id. at 115, 681 S.E.2d at 39-40. In response, Trane contends the issue whether the December 31, 2004 reference is a scrivener's error is not preserved as Trotter did not attempt to resolve this question at the Commission or in the circuit court. Trane further argues the Court of Appeals noted the inconsistencies in the dates in its opinion. Trane states Trotter cannot now argue that the inconsistency was merely a scrivener's error, and it requests that this date, along with the date[s] of January 31, 2005 and February 4, 2005, [the date on the Form 50] remain in the record to be resolved on remand. Contrary to Trane's assertion, the Court of Appeals did not discuss the discrepancies in the commissioner's order. Trotter did raise the issue in her petition for rehearing to the Court of Appeals, but rehearing was denied. In addition, we find Trotter's request is not barred by principles of error preservation. Cf. Rule 60(a), SCRCP (stating no explicit time limit for the correction of clerical errors). Trane acknowledged during oral argument that the commissioner's order also contains a second reference to the December 31, 2004 date in the Conclusions of Law, wherein she stated Trane's workers' compensation carrier shall reimburse Mrs. Trotter's private insurance carrier for all causally related medical treatment incurred since the accident date of December 31, 2004. Because all parties concede that Trotter was not working on December 31, 2004 and since linking the date for reimbursing medical expenses to this 2004 date could cause confusion, we grant Trotter's request that this Court correct what are clearly scrivener's errors. We additionally direct the Commission to correct its records to change the December 31, 2004 references to January 31, 2005.