Back to Attorneys

Vincent C. Northcutt

Partner

Charleston

p: 843-405-2226 f: 843-405-2226

Education

  • Clemson University, B.A. Magna Cum Laude
  • University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D.

Admissions

  • All South Carolina state courts
  • Supreme Court of South Carolina
  • South Carolina Court of Appeals

Memberships

  • State Bar of South Carolina
  • Charleston County Bar Association
  • South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association
  • South Carolina Workers' Compensation Education Association
  • Propeller Club of Charleston

Recognition

Mr. Northcutt is a Partner in the Charleston office of Lueder, Larkin & Hunter. His practice is concentrated on representing employers, insurance carriers, third-party administrators, mutual indemnity associations, self-insured funds, captive insurance programs, and uninsured employers on workers’ compensation claims arising under the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act and/or the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Mr. Northcutt is also a Certified Mediator.

Born in Charleston, South Carolina, South Carolina, he is a 1999 graduate of Clemson University (B.A. History, magna cum laude). While at Clemson University, Mr. Northcutt was a member of Omicron Delta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Sigma Nu. He received his law degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law (J.D. 2003). Vince served as a law clerk for the Judiciary Committee of the South Carolina House of Representatives during law school.

He is a member of the South Carolina Bar, the Charleston County Bar Association, the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Education Association, the South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association, the Propeller Club of Charleston, and the Palmetto Professional Society of Charleston.

Reported Cases

Tony D. Jones v. Harold Arnold’s Sentry Buick, Pontiac and South Carolina Automobile Dealers Association - Mr. Northcutt tried this case before the Charleston County Circuit Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals on behalf of Harold Arnold’s Sentry Buick, Pontiac and South Carolina Automobile Dealers Association. The Claimant asserted compensable injuries to his back and lower extremities due to two falls. The Employer and Carrier denied the injuries and asserted the affirmative defense of intoxication pursuant S.C. Code Section 42-9-60 since the Claimant tested positive for Cocaine after the falls. The circuit court upheld the decision of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission and the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the Charleston County Circuit Court. Jones v. HAROLD ARNOLD'S SENTRY BUICK, 656 S.E.2d 772 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Defense Verdicts

Dollar-for-dollar state credit for payments under other concurrent compensation schemes - Mr. Northcutt tried this concurrent jurisdiction case before the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission on behalf of Container Maintenance Corporation/Marine Repair Services and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The Claimant contended that the Employer and Carrier were not due credit for payments made, on this same claim, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The Employer and Carrier contended that S.C. Code Sections 42-9-210, 42-15-10, and common law principles disfavoring double recovery dictated credit for payments made, on the same claim, under any concurrent benefit scheme. The Commissioner ruled for the Employer and Carrier and awarded dollar-for-dollar credit for benefits paid under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act pursuant to S.C. Code Sections 42-9-210, 42-15-10, and common law principles disfavoring double recovery. This case is typically referenced in every concurrent jurisdiction case tried before the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Longshore claim time barred due to lack of notice to the Employer and lack of timely filing of claim for benefits – Mr. Northcutt tried this concurrent jurisdiction case before the United States Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation on behalf of SSA Cooper, LLC and Homeport Insurance Company. The Claimant alleged that he established a prima facie case that entitled him to the Section 920(a) presumption that his injury is causally related to his employment. The Claimant further alleged that he gave timely notice and timely filed his claim for benefits. The Employer and Carrier contended that the Claimant had not established a prima facie case and in the alternative that the Claimant had established a prima facie case the Employee had not given timely notice of his claim to the Employer or timely filed his claim for benefits. The Administrative Law Judge ruled for the Employer and Carrier and found that the Claimant’s claim was time barred as he had not given timely notice to the Employer or timely filed his claim for benefits.

Claimant was not due compensation benefits for closed period due to Employer having identified suitable alternative employment on the waterfront – Mr. Northcutt tried this concurrent jurisdiction case before the United States Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation on behalf of SSA Cooper, LLC and Homeport Insurance Company. The Claimant alleged that he established a prima facie case that entitled him to the Section 920(a) presumption that his injury is causally related to his employment. The Claimant further alleged that he could not return to his regular employment for a closed period of time. The Claimant contended that his suspension from work due to a failed drug test did not relieve the Employer of its duty to pay disability benefits for the complete closed period. The Employer and Carrier contended that the Claimant had not established a prima facie case and in the alternative that the Claimant had established a prima facie case that the Employee could return to light duty work on the waterfront two weeks after his injury. The Administrative Law Judge ruled for the Employer and Carrier and found that the Employer established suitable alternative employment on the waterfront two weeks after the Claimant’s injury.

Claimant was not permanently and totally disabled and was limited to scheduled recovery as Employer/Carrier rebutted presumption of permanent and total disability - Mr. Northcutt tried this case before the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission on behalf of the Medical University of South Carolina and the State Accident Fund. The Claimant contended, based upon the accepted injuries to her neck, left shoulder, and left arm, that she was permanently and totally disabled based upon her age, education, and employment history. In the alternative that she was not found permanently and totally disabled, the Claimant contended that she had suffered a permanent partial loss of her earning capacity pursuant to S.C. Code Section 42-9-20. The Commissioner ruled for the Employer and Carrier and found that the claimant was not permanently and totally disabled, had not suffered a permanent partial loss of earning capacity pursuant to S.C. Code Section 42-9-20, and the Claimant’s recovery was limited to the scheduled remedy set forth in S.C. Code Section 42-9-30.

Education

  • Clemson University, B.A. Magna Cum Laude
  • University of South Carolina School of Law, J.D.

Admissions

  • All South Carolina state courts
  • Supreme Court of South Carolina
  • South Carolina Court of Appeals

Memberships

  • State Bar of South Carolina
  • Charleston County Bar Association
  • South Carolina Defense Trial Attorneys Association
  • South Carolina Workers' Compensation Education Association
  • Propeller Club of Charleston

Support Staff

Jenna McClain Litigation Paralegal (South Carolina Claims) 843-353-1987
Ansley DeVita Litigation Paralegal (Federal Claims) 843-405-2248