McCallum v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 14 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2005-UP-113 |
| Parties | Elaine W. McCallum, Appellant, v. Beaufort County School District, Self-Insured Employer, through the South Carolina Boards Insurance Trust, |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted February 1, 2005
Appeal From Beaufort County Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge
J Olin McDougall, II, of Beaufort, for Appellant.
Kirsten Leslie Barr, of Mt. Pleasant, for Respondent.
Elaine W. McCallum appeals the circuit court's order affirming the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's (the Commission) decision denying her workers' compensation benefits. We affirm. [1]
McCallum sought benefits for injuries she sustained in an accident that allegedly occurred during the course and scope of her employment as a gifted and talented teacher at St. Helena Elementary School on August 23, 2000.
McCallum testified on her own behalf before the Single Commissioner. According to her testimony, on the day of the accident McCallum was calculating student grade point averages, which required her to review student files located in the school's main office. The files were stored in eleven by fourteen inch boxes. McCallum alleged she was lifting a box of files when she turned and her right knee popped out.” She remained at work for part of the day, but eventually signed a blank leave sheet, However, at the hearing, Chisolm testified that although her office was next to the student files, she never heard McCallum cry out in pain and knew nothing of an injury.
Following the alleged accident, McCallum continued working. McCallum testified that she made an appointment with Dr. Rodin, an orthopedist, for September 1, 2000. Prior to her September 1 appointment with Dr. Rodin, McCallum sought treatment for a cough from Dr. Jenkins, an associate doctor within the same practice. According to Dr. Jenkins's record dated August 31, 2000, McCallum did not complain of any problem with her knee.
McCallum then saw Dr. Rodin, but failed to check the box directly above her signature on the patient registration form to indicate her injury was work related. Language located directly above McCallum's signature on the patient registration form stated that written workers' compensation verification was needed before she could be seen if her problems were work related. The second page of the registration form contained a space for McCallum to list all injuries” she could recall with appropriate dates however, she listed no injuries and Dr. Rodin filled the space with a Ø” symbol showing no injuries. On the final page of the registration form, McCallum signed a statement acknowledging her responsibility for the payment of treatment costs.
On September 8, 2000, McCallum sustained another injury while shopping. McCallum was leaving a store and leaning on a shopping cart when a store employee jerked the cart away causing her hip to pop” and a pain to shoot down past her right knee.
McCallum submitted Dr. Rodin's records in support of her worker's compensation claim. Dr. Rodin's record dated November 2, 2000, reveals that McCallum was unsure of the date of her injury. Dr. Rodin's report dated September 1, 2000, suggests McCallum twisted her knee carrying boxes of student files on August 23, 2000. A notation at the bottom of the page shows the note was not dictated until April 24, 2001, because, according to Rodin, the original dictation couldn't be found.” Dr. Rodin testified, via deposition, that he relied on his recollections, handwritten notes, and McCallum's registration form in dictating the note. McCallum, however, did not mention any history of an accident on her registration form, and Dr. Rodin's handwritten notes indicate McCallum had no history of an accident. Moreover, on March 21, 2001, Dr. Rodin dictated an operative note reporting McCallum injured her knee as the result of a fall. The Commission affirmed the Single Commissioner's finding that Dr. Rodin's dictation was neither reliable nor credible and his opinions should be accorded little weight.
Dr. Laverne Davis, principal of St. Helena Elementary School, testified on behalf of Beaufort County School District at the hearing. Dr. Davis testified she first learned of McCallum's injury in November 2000. Prior to that time, Dr. Davis thought McCallum was out of work due to the injuries she sustained while shopping. Although McCallum informed Davis she needed to attend physical therapy sessions, McCallum did not tell Davis she was injured at work during the months of August, September, or October.
After she learned of McCallum's allegations, Dr. Davis investigated by speaking to everyone who worked in the school office and witnesses listed on the incident report McCallum filled out in November 2000, including Terry Miller. Dr. Davis testified that no one, including Miller, had any knowledge of McCallum injuring her right knee at work. The Single Commissioner admitted the deposition testimony of Miller into evidence at the hearing. In her deposition, Miller testified that she first learned McCallum was injured when she called and reported her shopping injury. According to Miller, it was not until much later that she learned McCallum alleged she was injured at work.
Following the hearing, the Single Commissioner issued an order finding McCallum was not entitled to workers' compensation benefits because she was not injured within the course and scope of her employment. McCallum appealed to the Commission, arguing the Single Commissioner erred in: 1). finding McCallum was not injured in the course and scope of her employment; 2). admitting the deposition testimony of Miller; 3). admitting the hearsay testimony of Dr. Davis; 4). according little weight to Dr. Rodin's testimony and records; and 5). finding McCallum lacked credibility and was too highly educated to misunderstand the patient registration forms. The Commission unanimously affirmed the order of the Single Commissioner in its entirety.
McCallum appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the Commission and denied McCallum's motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for decisions by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 132, 276 S.E.2d 304, 305 (1981). The appellate court's review is limited to deciding whether the commission's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by some error of law.” Hendricks v. Pickens County, 335 S.C. 405, 411, 517 S.E.2d 698, 701 (Ct. App. 1999); see Roper Hosp. v. Clemons, 326 S.C. 534, 536, 484 S.E.2d 598, 599 (Ct. App. 1997) (). It is not within our province to reverse findings of the Commission which are supported by substantial evidence.” Broughton v. South of the Border, 336 S.C. 488, 496, 520 S.E.2d 634, 637 (Ct. App. 1999).
McCallum argues the Commission erred in finding that she did not prove she sustained an injury in the course and scope of her employment on August 23, 2000. We disagree.
In order to receive workers' compensation benefits, McCallum must prove that she sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.” S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (Supp. 2004). The Commission found McCallum was not entitled to benefits and affirmed the Single Commissioner's ruling that McCallum did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of her employment on August 23, 2000. We must affirm the Commission's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the whole record. Nettles v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. #7, 341 S.C. 580, 586, 535 S.E.2d 146, 149 (Ct. App. 2000). Substantial evidence is ‘not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action.'” Miller by Miller v. State Roofing Co . , 312 S.C. 452, 454, 441 S.E.2d 323, 324-25 (1994) (quoting Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981)). The substantial evidence rule does not allow judicial fact-finding, or the substitution of judicial judgment for agency judgment. A judgment upon which reasonable men might differ will not be set aside.” Todd's Ice Cream, Inc. v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Comm'n, 281 S.C. 254, 258, 315 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Ct. App. 1984). However, [w]here there is a conflict in the evidence, either of different witnesses or of the same witnesses, the findings of fact of the Commission as triers of the fact are conclusive.” Holcombe v. Dan River Mills/Woodside Div., 286 S.C. 223, 225, 333 S.E.2d 338, 340 (Ct. App. 1985).
Our review of the record indicates there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding McCallum was not injured in the course of her employment. The Commission noted that McCallum's claim for benefits relied largely on her own testimony and that the Single Commissioner properly discounted her testimony because it lacked credibility. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial