South Carolina Second Injury Fund v. American Home Assurance Co., 2014-UP-227

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM:
• Decision Date: 18 June 2014
• Parties: South Carolina Second Injury Fund, Appellant, v. American Home Assurance Co., Respondent. (In Re: John Stroud v. John F. Stroud & Sons, Inc.) Appellate Case No. 2012-213511
• Docket Number: 2014-UP-227

South Carolina Second Injury Fund, Appellant,
v.
American Home Assurance Co., Respondent.

(In Re: John Stroud
v.
John F. Stroud & Sons, Inc.)

Appellate Case No. 2012-213511

No. 2014-UP-227

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

June 18, 2014

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard March 6, 2014

Appeal From Chesterfield County Paul M. Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Latonya Dilligard Edwards, of Dilligard Edwards, LLC, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Jared Matthew Pretulak and Robert Charles Rogers, both of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

In this workers' compensation matter, South Carolina Second Injury Fund (the Fund) appeals the decision of the circuit court affirming the order of South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) granting American Home Assurance Co. (Carrier) reimbursement pursuant to section 42-9-400 of the South Carolina Code. The Fund argues (1) claimant's diabetes was not serious enough to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment or reemployment, nor did it result in a combination with or aggravation by claimant's subsequent work-related injury; (2) the Commission erred in finding Carrier is entitled to reimbursement for claimant's permanent and total disability because claimant's preexisting conditions did not contribute to claimant's disability; (3) the Commission erred in finding the Fund conceded knowledge of claimant's alleged traumatic brain injury/brain damage and that claimant's prior concussion rose to the level of brain damage; and (4) if claimant's concussion constituted a permanent condition, it was not serious enough to constitute a hindrance or obstacle to employment, nor did it result in a combination with or aggravation by claimant's subsequent work-related injury. Based on the substantial evidence of record, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.As to whether claimant's preexisting diabetes constituted a hindrance or obstacle to employment or reemployment, and whether it resulted in a combination with or aggravation by claimant's work injury: Trotter v. Trane Coil Facility, 393 S.C. 637, 644, 714 S.E.2d 289, 293 (2011) ("The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) establishes the standard for judicial review of workers' compensation decisions."); id. (noting, under the APA, the appellate court can reverse or modify the decision of the Appellate Panel if the substantial rights of the appellant have been...