South Carolina Second Injury Fund v. American Home Assurance Co.

Decision Date18 June 2014
Docket Number2014-UP-227
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesSouth 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

UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record); Barton v. Higgs, 381 S.C. 367, 369-70, 674 S.E.2d 145, 146 (2009) ("When reviewing an appeal from the workers' compensation commission, the appellate court may not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the [Appellate Panel] as to the weight of evidence on questions of fact."); Jordan v. Kelly Co., 381 S.C. 483, 486, 674 S.E.2d 166, 168 (2009) (holding, in workers' compensation cases, the Appellate Panel is the ultimate finder of fact and the appellate court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel if they are supported by substantial evidence); Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 528, 593 S.E.2d 491, 495 (Ct App. 2004) ("The final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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