Hunter v. Patrick Const. Co., 22558

Decision Date22 April 1986
Docket NumberNo. 22558,22558
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesWyatt HUNTER, deceased, Mary Hunter, widow, Robert Lee Hunter, Sally May Hunter, George Hunter, John Ernest Hunter, and Keath Hunter, Appellants. v. PATRICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Employer, and Employers Insurance of Wausau, Insurer, Respondents. . Heard

Harry C. Wilson, Jr., of Lee, Wilson, Erter & Booth, Sumter, for appellants.

Paul B. Rodgers, III, of Robinson, McFadden, Moore, Pope, Williams, Taylor & Brailsford, Columbia, for respondents.

GREGORY, Justice:

In this Worker's Compensation action, the Full Commission reversed the Hearing Commissioner's award of compensation to the beneficiaries of a deceased employee. The Circuit Court affirmed the Full Commission, and the beneficiaries appeal. We affirm.

The only issue in this appeal is whether the decision of the Full Commission is supported by substantial evidence. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). The Commission, not this Court, is the fact-finder. It is not within our province to reverse findings supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It must be enough to justify, if the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. at 136, 276 S.E.2d at 307. 1

The evidence presented below was contradictory; however, the Commission's findings clearly were supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, analogous to a jury's findings of fact on disputed issues, the Commission's conclusions must be affirmed. 2

The deceased died of a heart attack at home four days after his last day of work. He was employed as a cement finisher and had been performing his regular duties. The deceased obviously did not feel well at work a few days before his death; however, he did not seek medical attention, nor did he request to stop work. He ignored his supervisor's advice to work at his own pace.

The work performed by deceased was typical of cement finishing. He worked 8-10 hours per day. The job on which he was working, although short crewed, was not behind schedule, nor was it in a rush posture. Five days before his death, the crew's lunch break was either late or abbreviated which was not unusual. Based on the testimony of a state climatologist, it was concluded that the temperature when the deceased last worked was not unusually or extraordinarily high.

Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that the decedent's heart attack was not the result of unusual or extraordinary conditions of employment. See Bridges v. Housing Authority, City of Charleston, 278 S.C. 342, 295 S.E.2d 872 (1982). As the Circuit Court concluded, "[t]he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Muir v. CR Bard, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 21, 1999
    ...is not within our province to reverse findings of the Commission which are supported by substantial evidence. Hunter v. Patrick Constr. Co., 289 S.C. 46, 344 S.E.2d 613 (1986). A court may not substitute its judgment for that of an agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fac......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1992
    ...... Before leaving, however, he asked a co-employee to clock him out at his normal quitting time of ......
  • Broughton v. South of the Border, 3024.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 6, 1999
    ...is not within our province to reverse findings of the Commission which are supported by substantial evidence. Hunter v. Patrick Constr. Co., 289 S.C. 46, 344 S.E.2d 613 (1986). See Tiller, supra (appellate court must affirm findings of fact made by Commission if they are supported by substa......
  • State v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 3, 1999
    ...... gathering evidence of the conspiracy and locating co-conspirators took substantial time. Specifically, the State ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT