Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 24367,24367 |
| Citation | 320 S.C. 515,466 S.E.2d 357 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Linda S. RODNEY, Appellant/Respondent, v. MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Respondents/Appellants. . Heard |
William Shaughnessy, of Haynsworth, Marion, McKay & Guerard, Greenville, for Respondents/Appellants.
Linda Rodney appeals the circuit court's order affirming the workers' compensation commission's denial of her claim. Michelin Tire and Hartford Accident and Indemnity (collectively "Employer" hereinafter) also appeal
alleging error in an evidentiary order by the circuit court.
Rodney was a substitute worker at Michelin Tire. She was trained for ten different jobs, substituting for other workers as needed. Rodney claims that she developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at one of the jobs, the carcass verification post. This job required her to separate two layers of rubber in order to inspect the lower layer. She alleges that the carpal tunnel syndrome occurred either as a result of an injury by accident on October 25, 1989 or as a result of cumulative trauma. Her testimony was that while working one evening lifting and inspecting tire carcasses, she found that the layers of rubber were "sticking," making difficult her task of inspecting. Thereafter she developed numbness and tingling in her hands; however, she continued to work her entire shift. In the next two months, as Rodney worked at her various jobs, her condition worsened. She visited medical personnel, but she did not inform her supervisor of any difficulty until December 1989.
In April 1990, Rodney filed a workers' compensation claim in which she alleged that she had developed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. She sought medical benefits, temporary compensation benefits for nine months, and permanent partial disability benefits. The workers' compensation commissioner denied the claim. Rodney appealed the denial and filed a motion to supplement the record. The full commission denied the motion. Rodney appealed the denial of the motion to the circuit court, and the circuit court ruled that the commission should consider additional evidence of a letter from Rodney's doctor. On remand, the commissioner denied the workers' compensation claim, and the full commission affirmed the denial. Rodney appealed to the circuit court which affirmed the commission's findings. Rodney now appeals the circuit court's order.
First, she argues that the circuit court erred in "directing a verdict" for Employer because "the preponderance of the evidence" showed that her disability resulted from repetitive use of her hands; that she is partially permanently disabled, a disability which led to her loss of employment; and that she did testify to an untoward event or one-time traumatic incident that caused her injury. Second, Rodney contends that continued procedural errors by the adjudicators prevented her from perfecting a proper appeal, thereby prejudicing her case. We disagree and affirm the circuit court's order.
The issues that Rodney raises in her first major argument are unpreserved. Arguments not raised to the workers' compensation commission or to the circuit court are not preserved for appeal. Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, --- S.C. ----, 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994). Rodney alleged eight errors by the commission in her appeal to the circuit court. Although she cites a few of these errors in her brief, her present arguments address substantially different issues.
Even if it is assumed that the issues were preserved for appeal, Rodney fails on the merits. In order for an employee to be entitled to workers' compensation benefits, he must show that he sustained an "injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment." S.C.Code Ann. § 42-1-160 (1985). The phrase "arising out of" in the workers' compensation statute refers to the origin of the cause of the accident. Bickley v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., 259 S.C. 463, 192 S.E.2d 866 (1972). "An injury arises out of employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury." Owings v. Anderson County Sheriff's Dep't, 315 S.C. 297, ----, 433 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1993).
A review of the record reveals that Dr. Robert Broker, who examined Rodney in December 1989, documented in his medical notes:
Further, he wrote that Rodney "thinks she might have just over worked her hands" and that he did not "feel there's any serious etiology at this time, other than possible carpal tunnel."
Dr. Kent Kistler examined Rodney later in the same month; his findings were compatible with "a median neuropathy at the level of the wrist or carpal tunnel with sensory fiber involvement only." In August 1990, Dr. L. Edwin Rudisill wrote in response to questions from Employer that He also indicated that Rodney had a 5% permanent partial impairment in each hand. In March 1991, Dr. Rudisill stated for the first time that Rodney's "condition did arise out of her employment."
Examining Rodney in December 1990, Dr. Joseph Hodge reported bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome involving the right and left upper extremities. In July 1992, Dr. Hodge's examination revealed that Rodney's condition was essentially unchanged since the prior examination and that she could return to her regular job whether she chose to have surgery or not. Further, he wrote that based on the history and physical examination, Rodney's problems were work related.
The record also contains testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston v. Deloach & Deloach
...appellate panel are presumed correct and will only be set aside if unsupported by substantial evidence. Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 519, 466 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1996). We rule there is substantial evidence to support the factual finding that allowing Brown to drive the dump tr......
-
Gray v. Club Group, Ltd.
...of the Full Commission are presumed correct and will only be set aside if unsupported by substantial evidence. Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 466 S.E.2d 357 (1996). We find there is substantial evidence to support the factual finding that Gray's accident occurred "arising out ......
-
Peake v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles
...and substantial evidence on the whole record." Summersell, 334 S.C. at 363, 513 S.E.2d at 622; see also Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 466 S.E.2d 357 (1996). "Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, b......
-
Aughtry v. Abbeville County Sch. Dist.
...relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury." Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 518, 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996). The day of the accident was a regularly scheduled school day for Aughtry. Additionally, he was reporting at hi......