Grayson v. Carter Rhoad Furniture

• Decision Date: 03 November 1993
• Docket Number: No. 2110,2110
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Jarvis GRAYSON, Respondent, v. CARTER RHOAD FURNITURE, Employer, and South Carolina Merchants Association, Carrier, Appellants. . Heard

Page 859

439 S.E.2d 859

312 S.C. 250

Jarvis GRAYSON, Respondent, v. CARTER RHOAD FURNITURE, Employer, and South Carolina Merchants Association, Carrier, Appellants.

No. 2110.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Nov. 3, 1993.

Decided Dec. 20, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1994.

Certiorari Granted June 30, 1994.

F. Earl Ellis, Jr., and Andrew F. Lindemann, of Nauful & Ellis, Columbia, for appellants.

J. Marvin Mullis, Jr., and James B. Richardson, Jr., of Svalina, Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

This is a workers' compensation case. Jarvis Grayson sought additional temporary total disability benefits for an injury he suffered while employed at Carter Rhoad Furniture. The single commissioner denied the benefits and the full commission affirmed. On appeal, the circuit court reversed the full commission. Carter Rhoad appeals. We affirm.

Grayson's job with Carter Rhoad was lifting and moving furniture. In August, 1990, he injured his back while working. In December, 1990, the treating physician, Dr. Graziano, released him to return to work, although he advised Grayson to be careful with lifting. Grayson returned to his job on December 17, 1990. He testified that he did his job the best he could, but was not able to do it as well as before his injury, and that the work was causing him a lot of pain. Three weeks later, Carter Rhoad terminated Grayson's employment. Grayson claims he is still disabled and entitled to additional benefits.

The single commissioner found Grayson was in need of further medical treatment but had not proven he was entitled to any additional temporary total disability benefits. The commissioner ordered Carter Rhoad to have Grayson evaluated by a neurologist and to provide any treatment the neurologist believed necessary. The commissioner also held that if Dr. Graziano or the neurologist excused Grayson from work, Carter Rhoad would have to pay temporary total disability benefits during that time.

The full commission affirmed the single commissioner's decision. Grayson petitioned for judicial review. Finding that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the circuit court reversed and remanded for entry of an order commencing temporary total benefits as of the date Carter Rhoad fired Grayson, to run until further order of the commission. Carter Rhoad appeals.

In a workers' compensation case, the decision of the commission may be reversed if substantial rights of the claimant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings are clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(g)(5) (1986); Massey v. W.R. Grace & Company, 286 S.C. 434, 334 S.E.2d 122 (1985). In this case, the administrative findings are clearly erroneous because they are based on a mistaken view of the evidence.

In addition to Grayson's testimony, the single commissioner had before him five reports that discussed in varying degrees Grayson's medical history and prognosis. In his order, the single commissioner stated:

The Claimant saw Dr. Margalit and Dr. Kochanski. Although neither gave an opinion specifically as to maximum medical improvement both assigned permanent physical impairment ratings.

Dr. Margalit's report, dated May 13, 1991, stated that Grayson had not reached...