Lyles v. Quantum Chemical Co. (Emery), No. 2051

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCURETON
Citation434 S.E.2d 292,315 S.C. 440
Decision Date19 May 1993
Docket NumberNo. 2051
PartiesRay F. LYLES, Respondent, v. QUANTUM CHEMICAL CO. (EMERY), Employer, and The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier, Appellants. . Heard

Page 292

434 S.E.2d 292
315 S.C. 440
Ray F. LYLES, Respondent,
v.
QUANTUM CHEMICAL CO. (EMERY), Employer, and The Aetna
Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier, Appellants.
No. 2051.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard May 19, 1993.
Decided July 12, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1993.
Certiorari Denied April 8, 1994.

Page 293

[315 S.C. 441] Jack D. Griffeth, Love, Thornton, Arnold & Thomason, Greenville, for appellants.

[315 S.C. 442] William H. Ehlies, Greenville, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

Ray F. Lyles filed a claim with the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission, alleging he was totally and permanently disabled as a result of a work-related injury to his back. The hearing commissioner found Lyles had lost 50% or more of the use of his back, rendering him totally and permanently disabled and entitling him to benefits pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 42-9-30(19). The full commission and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, Lyles's employer, Quantum Chemical Co., and Quantum's insurance carrier, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, assert the circuit court erred in affirming the commission's award pursuant to the authority of § 42-9-30(19) (1976). We affirm.

Lyles worked as a laborer with Quantum. At the hearing before the commissioner, Lyles testified he had sharp pains and his back "popped" while moving a 450-pound drum of chemicals. Despite three operations to his back, he stated he can't twist his body, bend over, run, sit for prolonged periods, perform manual labor, or work in his yard, without severe pain. He testified that despite pain, he is able to work because he alternates three days on the job with three days at home, where he is able to do whatever is necessary to relieve the pain.

Lyles was promoted in 1987 and after his second surgery. He testified if he lost his supervisor's job, he would find it difficult to find another job because all entry level positions require manual labor.

As a laborer, his annual base salary was $19,000, excluding overtime. His annual salary at the time of the hearing was $34,230.

Bernard Korty, Quantum's plant manager, testified Lyles has complained of pain and has stood during meetings to alleviate his pain. Although Korty does not work directly with Lyles, Korty has seen the claimant bend and stoop in doing his job since his accident. He stated Lyles was promoted because of his ability, not his injury, and Lyles's performance has [315 S.C. 443] been proficient and above average.

Quantum usually identifies and promotes supervisors from within the company. New employees begin at entry level, which involves manual labor. Quantum does not guarantee an employee a lifetime job, and Lyles does not have an employment contract.

At his deposition, Dr. Littlepage, the neurosurgeon who performed three operations on Lyles's back, testified Lyles suffers

Page 294

from spondylolisthesis, a shifting forward or misalignment of the fourth lumbar vertebrae. In as much as Lyles had no symptoms prior to the injury, Littlepage opined the surgery was necessitated by the injury, not by a possible pre-existing condition, and even if the condition pre-existed, it was exacerbated or aggravated by the injury. 1 He testified Lyles's symptoms were consistent with his injury and despite three surgeries to relieve the pressure on nerves and to fuse vertebrae, Lyles's condition may progress and require additional surgery. Littlepage rated Lyles's "total impairment to the whole body" at 35%.

The commissioner found Lyles's injury was work-related. He observed Lyles did not have an injury to his back and was able to work without restriction prior to August 22, 1985, and that Littlepage associated Lyles's condition "to a reasonable medical certainty" with the accident. The commissioner also found Lyles was impaired 50% or more in the use of his back. He noted:

a 35% impairment to the whole body is equal to 175 weeks and 175 weeks is equal to 58% of the back. The only injury with which this case is concerned [about] is the low[er] back. Although the Commission is not equating 35% of the whole man to 58% of the back, it is significant that the overall rating given by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 6, 2005
    ...unless the determination is unsupported by substantial evidence or is affected by an error of law."); Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, court of appeals will not set aside it......
  • Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund, 3949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 22, 2005
    ...Workers' Compensation Commission unless the determination is unsupported by substantial evidence."); Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that in reviewing decision of workers' compensation commission, court of appeals will not set aside its......
  • Sharpe v. Case Produce Co., 2775
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 2, 1997
    ...by an error of law. Stephen v. Avins Constr. Co., 324 S.C. 334, 478 S.E.2d 74 (Ct.App.1996). See also Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, Court of Appeals will not set aside its findings u......
  • Stephen v. Avins Const. Co., 2570
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...S.E.2d 872 (Ct.App.1993), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 319 S.C. 385, 461 S.E.2d 818 (1995). See Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, Court of Appeals will not set aside its findings unl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 6, 2005
    ...unless the determination is unsupported by substantial evidence or is affected by an error of law."); Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, court of appeals will not set aside it......
  • Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Sc Second Injury Fund, 3949.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 22, 2005
    ...Workers' Compensation Commission unless the determination is unsupported by substantial evidence."); Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (noting that in reviewing decision of workers' compensation commission, court of appeals will not set aside its......
  • Sharpe v. Case Produce Co., 2775
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 2, 1997
    ...by an error of law. Stephen v. Avins Constr. Co., 324 S.C. 334, 478 S.E.2d 74 (Ct.App.1996). See also Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, Court of Appeals will not set aside its findings u......
  • Stephen v. Avins Const. Co., 2570
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...S.E.2d 872 (Ct.App.1993), aff'd in part, remanded in part, 319 S.C. 385, 461 S.E.2d 818 (1995). See Lyles v. Quantum Chem. Co. (Emery), 315 S.C. 440, 434 S.E.2d 292 (Ct.App.1993) (in reviewing decision of Workers' Compensation Commission, Court of Appeals will not set aside its findings unl......
  • 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