Lynn Alexander v. Abbeville County Memorial Hospital

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 23, 2010
• Docket: 2010-UP-156
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Lynn Alexander,

Appellant,

v.

Abbeville County Memorial Hospital, Employer, and Palmetto Hospital Trust Services, Carrier,

Respondents.

__________

Appeal From Greenwood County

 J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2010-UP-156

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 23, 2010

AFFIRMED

Robert P. Foster and Lynsey T. Kmetz, of Greenville, and W. Townes Jones, IV, of Greenwood, for Appellant.

Bradford  B. Easterling, of Greenville, for                                      Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Lynn Alexander appeals the circuit court's affirmance of the denial of her claim for additional workers' compensation benefits by the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.                 As to whether the circuit court erred in affirming the Appellate Panel's decision in regards to Alexander's conclusive opinions of medical experts and "fully recovered" arguments: Tiller v. Nat'l Health Care Ctr. of Sumter, 334 S.C. 333, 341, 513 S.E.2d 843, 847 (1999) (holding "in deciding whether substantial evidence supports a finding of causation, we consider both the lay and expert evidence");  West v. Alliance Capital, 368 S.C. 246, 251, 628 S.E.2d 279, 282 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the Administrative Procedures Act does not permit an appellate court to "substitute its judgment for that of the [Appellate Panel] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact"); Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 282, 519 S.E.2d 583, 591 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Where there is a conflict in the evidence, either by different witnesses or in the testimony of the same witness, the findings of fact of the [Appellate Panel] are conclusive.").

2.                 As to whether the circuit court erred in concluding Alexander failed to prove causation: Clade v. Champion Labs., 330 S.C. 8, 11, 496 S.E.2d 856, 857 (1998) ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation."); Smith v. S.C. Dep't of Mental Health, 329 S.C. 485, 501, 494 S.E.2d 630, 638 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[T]he [Appellate Panel] is the sole fact-finder in workers' compensation cases, and . . .  any questions of credibility must be resolved by the [Appellate Panel].").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.