Scruggs v. Tuscarora Yarns, Inc., No. 1043

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSHAW
Citation294 S.C. 47,362 S.E.2d 319
Parties, 72 A.L.R.4th 899 Vera SCRUGGS, Respondent, v. TUSCARORA YARNS, INC., Employer, and Carolinas Textile Manufacturers, Carrier, Appellants. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 1043
Decision Date22 September 1987

Page 319

362 S.E.2d 319
294 S.C. 47, 72 A.L.R.4th 899
Vera SCRUGGS, Respondent,
v.
TUSCARORA YARNS, INC., Employer, and Carolinas Textile
Manufacturers, Carrier, Appellants.
No. 1043.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Sept. 22, 1987.
Decided Nov. 9, 1987.

Page 320

[294 S.C. 48] Michael A. Farry, of Horton, Drawdy, Ward & Johnson, Greenville, for appellants.

Richard H. Rhodes and Ben C. Harrison, of Burts, Turner, Hammett, Harrison, Rhodes & Thompson, Spartanburg, for respondent.

SHAW, Judge:

This is an appeal from an award of the South Carolina Industrial Commission under the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Law. Appellants, Tuscarora Yarns, Inc. and Carolinas Textile Manufacturers, hereinafter employer, appeal from an award of the single commissioner in favor of respondent, Vera Scruggs. The full commission and the circuit court upheld the award. We affirm.

On September 21, 1983, Mrs. Scruggs suffered injuries to her back while working for Tuscarora Yarns, Inc. She missed over three weeks of work, returning on October 17, 1983, and continuing to work until May 2, 1984. Subsequent to leaving work, Mrs. Scruggs sought treatment from Dr. Seastrunk, a doctor specializing in orthopaedics. Dr. Seastrunk[294 S.C. 49] transferred Mrs. Scruggs to the care of Dr. Rollins for diagnosis and treatment of a suspected ruptured disc. Upon examination, Dr. Rollins was "highly suspicious that she [had] a herniated lumbar disc." The only way to verify this diagnosis with certainty was to have a myelogram, a test which Dr. Rollins told her was not to be taken lightly and should be performed only if she wanted to proceed with surgery. Dr. Rollins testified there was a 70 to 75 percent chance surgery would lead to a significant improvement in Mrs. Scruggs' condition, but that he did not

Page 321

recommend surgery since he felt patients need to make that decision for themselves. The single commissioner found Mrs. Scruggs suffered a total and permanent disability of 50 percent and should receive compensation of $160.35 per week for a period not to exceed 500 weeks.

The employer first argues there is no substantial evidence to support a finding that Mrs. Scruggs was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the September 1983 injury. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and we will not overturn a finding of fact by an administrative agency unless there is no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Hall v. United Rentals, Inc., No. 4166.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 23, 2006
    ...medication helped alleviate employee's remaining symptoms, but medical condition would not improve); Scruggs v. Tuscarora Yarns, Inc., 294 S.C. 47, 50, 362 S.E.2d 319, 321 (Ct.App.1987) (finding substantial medical evidence existed that claimant, who was still undergoing physical therapy, h......
  • Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1997
    ...319 (Ct.App.1987). Unless the party who has failed to submit to discovery can show lack of prejudice, reversal is required. Id. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319. Even though the imposition of sanctions is usually left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whatever sanction the judge imposes "......
  • Cfre Llc v. Greenville County Assessor, No. 27032.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 29, 2011
    ...be presumed and, unless the party who has failed to submit to discovery can show lack of prejudice, reversal is required.” Id. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319 (emphasis added). As the Assessor correctly notes, CFRE itself conceded that there [395 S.C. 84] was nothing more the Assessor could produc......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2021
    ...reversal is required." 395 S.C. at 83, 716 S.E.2d at 886 (alteration and emphasis added by court) (quoting Downey, 294 S.C. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319). Husband suffered no surprise or prejudice from the admission of evidence related to the home or the firearms. First, Wife's complaint referr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Hall v. United Rentals, Inc., No. 4166.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 23, 2006
    ...medication helped alleviate employee's remaining symptoms, but medical condition would not improve); Scruggs v. Tuscarora Yarns, Inc., 294 S.C. 47, 50, 362 S.E.2d 319, 321 (Ct.App.1987) (finding substantial medical evidence existed that claimant, who was still undergoing physical therapy, h......
  • Samples v. Mitchell, No. 2747
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 19, 1997
    ...319 (Ct.App.1987). Unless the party who has failed to submit to discovery can show lack of prejudice, reversal is required. Id. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319. Even though the imposition of sanctions is usually left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whatever sanction the judge imposes "......
  • Cfre Llc v. Greenville County Assessor, No. 27032.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 29, 2011
    ...be presumed and, unless the party who has failed to submit to discovery can show lack of prejudice, reversal is required.” Id. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319 (emphasis added). As the Assessor correctly notes, CFRE itself conceded that there [395 S.C. 84] was nothing more the Assessor could produc......
  • Funderburk v. Funderburk, 2018-001173
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 8, 2021
    ...reversal is required." 395 S.C. at 83, 716 S.E.2d at 886 (alteration and emphasis added by court) (quoting Downey, 294 S.C. at 46, 362 S.E.2d at 319). Husband suffered no surprise or prejudice from the admission of evidence related to the home or the firearms. First, Wife's complaint referr......
  • 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