Murphy v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 September 2011
• Docket Number: 2011-UP-428
• Parties: Betty J. Murphy, Respondent, v. Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management, Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Betty J. Murphy, Respondent, v. Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management, Appellants.

No. 2011-UP-428

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

September 26, 2011

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard September 14, 2011.

Appeal From Dorchester County, Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge.

Michael W. Burkett and Sarah S. Alphin, both of Columbia, for Appellants.

John C. Land, III and Ricci Land Welch, both of Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

This appeal arises out of an order of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) that was affirmed by the circuit court. Appellants Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management claim the Commission erred in: (1) granting Respondent Betty Murphy's motion to amend her pleadings to allege a new date of accident; (2) selecting a date of accident and theory of recovery not contained within Murphy's pleadings; (3) finding Murphy sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment; and (4) finding Murphy totally disabled by combining her right leg injury with preexisting impairments. We affirm.

1. As to Appellants' arguments that the Commission erred by granting Murphy's motion to amend her pleadings and by selecting a date of accident not contained in the pleadings we find these arguments are not preserved for appellate review based on the record presented to this court on appeal. See Rule 210(h), SCACR ("Except as provided by Rule 212 and Rule 208(b)(1)(C) and (2), the appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Leggett v. Smith, 386 S.C 63, 74 n.3, 686 S.E.2d 699, 705 n.3 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting the appellant bears the burden of providing the court with an adequate record on appeal). Even if these arguments are preserved for review, we find no error of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5) (Supp. 2010) (providing the standard of review for appeals from the Commission); Callahan v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist, 375 S.C. 92 95, 651 S.E.2d 311, 313 (2007) (holding an appellate court may reverse where the decision is affected by an error of law).

2. As to Appellants' arguments that the Commission erred by awarding Murphy benefits for her injury and by combining her injury with preexisting impairments, we find the Commission's order is supported by substantial evidence. See Bartley v. Allendale Cnty. Sch. Dist., 392 S.C 300, 306, 709 S.E.2d 619, 622 (2011) ("As a general rule, this Court must affirm...