Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 24982.
| Decision Date | 02 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 24982.,24982. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Anthony SHARPE, Respondent, v. CASE PRODUCE, INC., d/b/a Case Produce Co., Inc. and S.C. Workers' Compensation Uninsured Employers' Fund, Petitioners. |
Robert T. Williams, Sr., of Williams, Hendrix, Steigner & Brink, P.A., of Lexington, for respondent.
Ajerenal Danley, of Columbia, and W.T. Geddings, of Manning, for petitioners.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Sharpe v. Case Produce Company, 329 S.C. 534, 495 S.E.2d 790 (Ct.App.1997). We reverse.
Sharpe worked for Case Produce packing and delivering cases of tomatoes. He filed a Workers' Compensation claim, alleging he had been injured in the course and scope of his employment. According to Sharpe's testimony, on Thursday, July 21st 1994, he was supposed to deliver 8 cases of tomatoes, weighing 25 lbs. each. Since it was a fairly small load, he decided to use his own car to deliver them. As he went to set the first two boxes of tomatoes in his trunk, he Sharpe testified that he had worked the three days prior to the accident without any problems. On cross-examination, Sharpe testified he was having some kidney pain down his left side prior to the date of the accident, for which his employer had offered him a back brace. After the accident, he was hospitalized for 10 days, during which he had disc surgery performed on his back.1 When cross-examined about whether he had had a physical altercation with his girlfriend, Shonda Goins Harper, the Saturday prior to the accident (July 16th), Sharpe denied that Harper had pushed him against a counter, or hurt his back in any way, and maintained she merely slapped him in the face and pushed him lightly in the chest. He denied that he went to work on Monday complaining of severe back pain due to the fight.
Sharpe's employer, Doc Case, presented an entirely different picture. Case testified that on Monday, July 18th, when he arrived at work he found Sharpe sitting on the front dock with a sore on his eye, his arms all scratched up and complaining he'd been in a fight and could hardly stand up because his back hurt so bad. He was leaning over the packing table or squatting down in the morning and was hurting so bad that Case sent him home at lunchtime. When he returned the next day, Sharpe told him his back still hurt pretty bad, so Case gave him a back brace to use. On Wednesday, Sharpe told Case he felt like he was a little better. According to Case, however, although Sharpe came to work Monday through Wednesday, he really was "too broke up and hurting to do anything." On Thursday, July 21st, while most of the other employees were on their morning break, Case heard Sharpe yell for help. He went and found Sharpe lying at least 4-5 feet from his car, between the car and the loading dock. Sharpe told Case he couldn't move his legs and asked him to call an ambulance. Case did not see the alleged accident, but he testified it did not look like the tomatoes had been dropped, as generally if the cases were dropped, the lids would pop.
Shonda Goins Harper, the girlfriend with whom Sharpe allegedly fought the Saturday prior to the accident, testified she and Sharpe were involved in a physical altercation on Saturday, July 16th, during which she pushed Sharpe pretty hard up against the sink counter and bar five or six times. The counter was at about the same height as Sharpe's incisions from his disc surgery. When she saw Sharpe a couple days after the fight, he told her he was still real sore and his back had been bothering him.
The only medical evidence in the record regarding the causation of Sharpe's back injury is 1) an undated note from Dr. Victoria Palkanis Samuels stating the injury and surgery were a result of a work related accident, and 2) a "History" contained in the discharge summary of Lexington Medical Center indicating Sharpe was admitted "following a sudden loss of sensory motor function in the lower extremities with extreme midthoracic back pain which occurred when the patient was lifting at work." It is undisputed that Sharpe never told Doctor Samuels about the alleged altercation with Shonda Goins Harper.
After hearing the testimony, the Single Commissioner issued his order finding Sharpe did not sustain an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner specifically noted that he did not find Sharpe's testimony credible, but did find Case and Harper credible regarding their testimony that Sharpe injured his back during the confrontation on Saturday, July 16th. The Commissioner specifically discounted the undated report of Dr. Samuels. The Full Commission affirmed, as did the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held there was "no evidence the injury, as Sharpe relate[d], did not happen." The Court of Appeals further found that the Full Commission had ignored the medical evidence. The Court of Appeals went on to hold that, even if Sharpe was injured in the altercation with Harper, he was nonetheless entitled to compensation due to the aggravation of his pre-existing condition.
As noted, the Court of Appeals found "no evidence the injury, as Sharpe relate[d], did not happen." This was error.
Whether there is any causal connection between employment and an injury is a question of fact for the Commission. Rhodes v. Guignard Brick Works, 245 S.C. 304, 140 S.E.2d 487 (1965). The Commission's decision must be affirmed if the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Minor v. Philips Prods., 329 S.C. 321, 494 S.E.2d 819 (1997). Substantial evidence is that evidence which, in considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the Commission reached. McGuffin v. Schlumberger-Sangamo, 307 S.C. 184, 414 S.E.2d 162 (1992). The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the Commission's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Hoxit v. Michelin Tire Corp., 304 S.C. 461, 405 S.E.2d 407 (1991). Where there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Conservation v. Dept. of Health
...v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 361 S.C. 416, 420, 604 S.E.2d 704, 707 (Ct.App. 2004); accord Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999); Bass, 365 S.C. at 468, 617 S.E.2d at 376. This Court, although not bound by the decision, will ordinarily defe......
-
Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
...the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E.2d 102 (1999); DuRant v. South Carolina Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 361 S.C. 416, 604 S.E.2d 704 (Ct.App.2004); Corbin, 3......
-
Hall v. United Rentals, Inc.
...the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence. Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E.2d 102 (1999); Smith v. NCCI Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 631 S.E.2d 268 (Ct.App.2006); DuRant v. S.C. Dept. of Health & Envtl. Control,......
-
Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc.
...in the record. Shuler v. Gregory Elec., 366 S.C. 435, 440, 622 S.E.2d 569, 571 (Ct.App.2005) (citing Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999)). It is not within the reviewing court's province to reverse findings of the Appellate Panel which are supported b......