Fox v. Newberry County Memorial Hosp.

• Decision Date: 21 August 1995
• Docket Number: No. 24300,24300
• Citation: 461 S.E.2d 392,319 S.C. 278
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: J. Carlene FOX, Respondent, v. NEWBERRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, and Palmetto Hospital Trust, Carrier, Petitioners.

Page 392

461 S.E.2d 392

319 S.C. 278

J. Carlene FOX, Respondent, v. NEWBERRY COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, and Palmetto

Hospital Trust, Carrier, Petitioners.

No. 24300.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted July 3, 1995.

Decided Aug. 21, 1995.

Lana H. Sims, Jr., and Andrew F. Lindemann, both of Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson & Sims, Columbia, for petitioners.

Everett Hope Garner, of Holler, Olive, Lengel & Garner, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals' decision in Fox v. Newberry County Memorial Hospital, --- S.C. ----, 451 S.E.2d 28 (Ct.App.1994). We deny certiorari as to Question V. We grant the writ of certiorari as to petitioners' Question I, dispense with further briefing, reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals' decision finding that herpetic whitlow is an occupational disease, and remand to the Workers' Compensation Commission. Certiorari is denied on Questions II through IV, as our disposition of Question I makes them moot.

Respondent filed a claim with the Workers' Compensation Commission alleging that she contracted a disease known as herpetic whitlow during her employment as a nurse at Newberry County Memorial Hospital. Petitioners denied compensation, asserting the condition was not work related. The single Commissioner found the herpetic whitlow to be an occupational disease and awarded respondent compensation. The full Commission affirmed.

On appeal to the Circuit Court, petitioners argued, as one of their 45 grounds for appeal, that the Commission erred in failing to make specific findings of fact regarding the six elements respondent needed to prove the existence of an occupational disease. In its order, however, the Circuit Court found that there were essentially two issues that needed to be addressed: (1) whether there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding of a compensable occupational disease; and (2) whether the full Commission erred in allowing into evidence a medical treatise entitled "Herpetic Whitlow." He found that there was not sufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding of a compensable occupational disease and that the Commission erred in considering the medical treatise; therefore, he reversed the finding of the Commission.

The Court of Appeals held that the record amply supports the Commission's findings on each of the six elements necessary to prove the existence of an occupational disease and reversed the order of the Circuit Court. Petitioners argue, however, that the Commission never made findings of fact on each of the six elements and that the Court of Appeals erred in substituting its findings of fact for those of the Commission. We agree.

The duty to determine facts is placed solely on the Commission and the court reviewing the decision of the Commission has no authority to determine factual issues but must remand the matter to the Commission for further proceedings. Drake v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 241 S.C. 116, 127 S.E.2d 288 (1962). The reviewing court may not make findings of fact as to basic issues of liability for compensation, where, to do so, would impose upon the court the function of determining such facts from conflicting evidence. Id.

In Mohasco Corp., Dixiana Mill Div. v. Rising, 289 S.C. 130, 345 S.E.2d 249 (Ct.App.1986), rev'd on other grounds, 292 S.C. 489, 357 S.E.2d 456 (1987) (Mohasco I ), the Court of Appeals set forth the following six elements that must be proven in order for a claimant to receive Workers' Compensation benefits for having contracted an occupational disease:

1. A disease;

2. The disease must arise out of and in the course of the claimant's employment;

3. The disease must be due to hazards in excess of those hazards that are ordinarily incident to employment;

4. The disease must be peculiar to the occupation in which the claimant was engaged;

5. The hazard causing the disease must be one recognized as peculiar to a particular trade, process, occupation, or employment; and

6. The disease must directly result from the claimant's continuous exposure to the normal working conditions of the particular trade, process, occupation, or employment.

In Mohasco I, the Court of Appeals determined that the Commission had made findings of fact on all of...