Opinion ID: 2505482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr. James

Text: As for Dr. James, we agree with Trotter that the Court of Appeals mischaracterized the evidence when it stated Trane sought to depose Dr. James prior to the hearing, but due to scheduling difficulties, the deposition was scheduled for a date after the hearing. Trotter, 384 S.C. at 118-19, 681 S.E.2d at 41 (emphasis added). Upon reviewing the record, we find there is evidentiary support for the commissioner's finding that Trane had the opportunity to depose Dr. James on the agreed-upon date of September 7, 2005; however, it chose to cancel the deposition for strategic reasons. On August 5, 2005, the Commission sent all parties a Notice of Hearing advising them that the hearing on Trotter's claim would be held on September 20, 2005. The parties initially scheduled the depositions of both Trotter and Dr. James for August 23, 2005, but when other, unrelated hearings arose for that date, the parties agreed to take both depositions on September 7, 2005. On August 11, 2005, Trane formally noticed the depositions of both Trotter and Dr. James for the agreed-upon date of September 7th. Both Trotter and Dr. James confirmed their availability. Subsequently, on August 29, 2005, Trane told Trotter's counsel that it wanted to postpone Dr. James's deposition so it could have the transcript of Trotter's deposition in hand before deposing Dr. James. Trotter's counsel opposed the rescheduling, stating she did not believe this was a legitimate reason to postpone the proceedings. Counsel stated that Dr. James would be available on September 7th unless the Commission ordered otherwise. Trane filed a motion for a continuance with the Commission on August 31, 2005. On September 1, 2005, before a ruling had been made on the motion, Trane sent Trotter's counsel a letter informing her that it was changing Dr. James's deposition date from September 7th to September 14th. Trane apparently contacted Dr. James's office directly and reset the date without consulting Trotter's counsel. Trotter's counsel again opposed the rescheduling, stating she already had three other depositions set for September 14th. Therefore, she planned to remain available for the deposition to proceed on September 7th as previously agreed. On September 7th, Trane took Trotter's deposition as noticed. Dr. James was available, but Trane cancelled his deposition and chose not to depose him at that time. The commissioner thereafter denied Trane's motion for a continuance of the hearing, finding Trane had the opportunity to depose Dr. James, but had elected not to proceed on the agreed-upon date of September 7th for strategic reasons. Trane's motion to hold the record open for Dr. James's deposition to be taken on a date after the hearing was likewise denied. We conclude the commissioner did not abuse her discretion in denying Trane's motions for a continuance or to hold the record open for the taking of Dr. James's deposition. Trane could have attempted to schedule the depositions sequentially in the beginning in order to achieve its goal of having the transcript of Trotter's deposition before deposing Dr. James. However, once all parties had consented to taking the depositions on September 7th and Trane had formally noticed the depositions for that date, its options became more limited. Contrary to Trane's assertion, it does not have an unfettered right to postpone the hearing simply to implement a better strategy for itself. Trane assumed the risk that its motion would be denied, which was not prudent since a continuance is not a matter of right, but of discretion. See 17 C.J.S. Continuances § 4 (2011) (observing continuances are not favored and [a] party has no absolute right to a continuance as a matter of law (footnote omitted)). In addition, Trane has not demonstrated any prejudice. Dr. James's medical notes were submitted to the commissioner and considered as part of the record, and on appeal Trane has shown no material information that Dr. James would have provided that is not already included in the record. Dr. James's notes fully address his diagnosis and treatment of Trotter's medical condition, and he specifically conceded in his notes that he had no direct knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Trotter's injury. Consequently, we hold the commissioner did not abuse her discretion in denying the requests for a continuance or to hold the record open for the deposition of Dr. James to be taken. Lastly, we discern nothing inconsistent in the commissioner's rulings to initially leave the record open for the deposition of Charleston to be taken, but not Dr. James, as found by the Court of Appeals. Trotter, 384 S.C. at 119 n. 2, 681 S.E.2d at 42 n. 2. Trane's request pertaining to Charleston was based on medical necessity and arose suddenly, and the request as to Dr. James was based on Trane's desire to obtain a strategic advantage. The circumstances were not similar and need not have been treated in the same manner by the commissioner. A tribunal necessarily exercises wide discretion in managing a case, and decisions denying a request for a continuance are rarely overturned. Morris v. State, 371 S.C. 278, 283, 639 S.E.2d 53, 56 (2006) (citing State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 95 S.E.2d 857 (1957)); M & M Group, Inc. v. Holmes, 379 S.C. 468, 475, 666 S.E.2d 262, 265 (Ct.App. 2008). Every reasonable presumption in favor of a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion will be made. 17 C.J.S. Continuances § 5 (2011). Based on the foregoing, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the Commission, which had adopted the single commissioner's findings and conclusions in full.
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.