McGuffin v. Schlumberger-Sangamo

• Decision Date: 06 December 1991
• Docket Number: SCHLUMBERGER-SANGAMO,No. 23577,23577
• Parties: Alice McGUFFIN, Respondent, v., and Insurance Company of North America, Appellants. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 162

414 S.E.2d 162

307 S.C. 184

Alice McGUFFIN, Respondent, v. SCHLUMBERGER-SANGAMO, and Insurance Company of North

America, Appellants.

No. 23577.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 6, 1991.

Decided Feb. 10, 1992.

[307 S.C. 185] James J. Reid, Greenville, for appellants.

Hal J. Warlick and Bryan D. Ramey, Easley, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

Respondent filed a claim seeking workers' compensation benefits contending she injured her back while lifting a tray of parts in the course of her employment with appellant, Schlumberger-Sangamo. The single commissioner awarded benefits. The Full Commission reversed the award. On petition for judicial review, the Circuit Court reversed, finding the Order of the Full Commission was clearly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the whole record. We affirm.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the Order of the Full Commission denying benefits is supported by substantial evidence.

APPLICABLE LAW

Although it is logical for the Full Commission, which did not have the benefit of observing the witnesses, to give weight to the hearing commissioner's opinion, the Full Commission is empowered to make its own findings of fact and to reach its own conclusions of law consistent or inconsistent with those of the hearing commissioner. Green v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 250 S.C. 58, 156 S.E.2d 318 (1967). See S.C.Code Ann. § 42-17-50 (1985). The final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is left to the Full Commission. Ross v. American Red Cross, 298 S.C. 490, 381 S.E.2d 728 (1989).

A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(g) (1986). The findings of the Commission will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence but evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the agency reached. Id.

DISCUSSION

The respondent testified, as part of her job for the past four months, she was required to lift heavy trays of parts eight to ten times a day. She testified on February 6, 1989, as she was picking up a tray of parts, she developed a "bad stinging" in her back. Although respondent denied mentioning her pain to anyone at work, a coworker testified respondent complained of back pain at the end of the day. At that time the respondent told her coworker her pain was related to her kidneys. The respondent has a history of a congenital deformity of the right kidney and had experienced soreness related to her kidneys in the past, although never to the extent she felt on this day. She denied any other history of back problems.

When respondent's pain continued to worsen during the night, she sought treatment in the local emergency room. The urologist who examined her at that time testified her complaints were certainly consistent with a kidney stone. A "white spot" was observed on x-ray in the vicinity of her left ureter. The respondent, however, underwent further testing which, the urologist testified, indicated there was in fact no kidney stone on the left side. Other testing was performed including an urinalysis, cystoscope and bone scan. After these tests were performed, the urologist concluded her pain was probably musculoskeletal. Respondent was treated with muscle relaxants and her pain improved. The urologist testified the fact that she improved with bed rest and treatment for muscle strain indicated this was...