100, 105 (2003). Here, the statute clearly requires timely notice to be given to all three entities employer, carrier, and Commission on the Form S-2. We find the circuit court erred by excusing compliance with the statute based on the “equitable adjustment of the rights of all the parties.” Even though the employer had not lost its right of subrogation against the potentially responsible third-party, the statutory provision mandates notice to the employer, carrier, and Commission within thirty days of filing the third-party suit. It was improper for the circuit court to conduct an equity analysis to carve an exception to the workers’ compensation notice requirement. See Wigfall, supra; Santee Cooper Resort, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Commn., 298 S.C. 179, 185, 379 S.E.2d 119, 123 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Despite Claimant’s failure to comply with §
holding that a courts equitable powers must yield in the face of an unambiguously worded statute holding that pursuant to federal statute and the courts inherent equitable powers a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a separate money judgment after determining the amount and dischargeability of a claim holding that it was within the bankruptcy courts equitable powers to award damages in an action for fraud on the court holding that courtsupervised medical surveillance fund is exercise of courts equitable powers holding that when interpreting statute court must avoid a conclusion that  is not supported when construing every part or section of the statute and would yield an absurd result