Opinion ID: 2505482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pat Charleston

Text: As to Charleston, he was supposed to testify at the September 20th hearing, and his unavailability was sudden. He was hospitalized on the weekend before the hearing and had surgery the day of the hearing. The commissioner granted Trane's request to hold the record open for 14 days from the hearing date and, when Charleston was still incapacitated at the end of that time, the commissioner granted Trane's October 4, 2005 request for a two-week extension and agreed to hold the record open until October 20, 2005. [4] No deposition was ever scheduled, and the commissioner closed the record on October 20, 2005. Based on everything in the record, we find the commissioner did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in closing the record. We agree with Trane that it was not at fault in failing to obtain Charleston's deposition, as Charleston was ill. However, the Court of Appeals specifically acknowledged that the exact date on which Charleston would become available for a deposition was unknown[.] Trotter, 384 S.C. at 117, 681 S.E.2d at 41. The only medical information submitted to the commissioner by Trane at that time came from Charleston's treating physician, who indicated Charleston was still hospitalized, that he was unable to participate in a deposition, and that his prognosis was poor. Charleston was suffering from a life-threatening illness (cancer) with no certain recovery date. After a month, during which time no deposition was scheduled and no update had been received from Trane, the commissioner closed the record. Although the Court of Appeals states Trane did not ask the commissioner to leave the record open indefinitely, that is, in effect, what is being urged on appeal as there is no indication in the record that Charleston would have been available for a deposition at any time prior to the issuance of the commissioner's order in May 2006. Trane did maintain at the appeal before the circuit court that Charleston was then well enough to provide a deposition, but that was in 2007, well after the 2005 hearing in this matter and the issuance of the commissioner's order in 2006. To further delay the resolution of Trotter's claim due to the continuing illness of a witness, however unfortunate the circumstances, would not serve the interests of justice, and was a factor necessarily considered by the commissioner in making her decision to close the record. Moreover, Trane has shown no prejudice on appeal. Charleston's e-mail of February 28, 2005 to DeBoo was admitted into evidence. The e-mail set forth the essence of Charleston's expected testimony, i.e., that Trotter reported a back injury to him on Friday, February 4, 2005, but she did not report it as being work-related. Charleston further stated in his e-mail that Trotter went home on Friday, February 4th, and the next time she called, Trotter reported that she had undergone surgery and would be out of work for a few months. Thus, Charleston's account of events was in the record for consideration by the commissioner, and Trane has not shown any other material information that Charleston would have been able to contribute. [5] No error of law has been alleged or shown, and the commissioner's factual findings in this regard are fully supported by the record.