Mungin v. REA Construction

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: October 17, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-591
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Jimmy Mungin, Jr., Claimant, Appellant,

v.

REA Construction Company, Employer, and Zurich-American Insurance Group, Carrier, Respondents.

---

Appeal From Jasper County
 Perry M. Buckner, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-591
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 17, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

R. Thayer Rivers, Jr., of Ridgeland, for Appellant.

Paul Linwood Hendrix, of Spartanburg, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this workers’ compensation case, Jimmy Mungin appeals the circuit court’s order affirming the decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities.

1.  As to whether the Appellate Panel erred in holding Mungin was not entitled to disability benefits:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(5) (Supp. 2007) (providing an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Appellate Panel as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact and may reverse or modify the Appellate Panel’s decision only if the findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are “clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record”); Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 201, 641 S.E.2d 869, 871 (2007) (holding an appellate court’s review is limited to deciding whether the Appellate Panel’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by some error of law); McCraw v. Mary Black Hosp., 350 S.C. 229, 235, 565 S.E.2d 286, 289 (2002) (“Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, but evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the agency reached.”); Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999) (holding the Appellate Panel’s decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s findings from being supported by substantial evidence).

2.  As to whether the Appellate Panel erred in awarding permanent partial disability benefits based on a five percent impairment rating: Grant v. Grant Textiles, 372 S.C. 196, 201, 641 S.E.2d 869, 871 (2007) (holding an appellate court’s review is limited to deciding whether the Appellate Panel’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by some error of law).

3.  As to whether the Appellate Panel erred in denying Mungin’s request for reimbursement of unauthorized medical costs: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-60 (Supp. 2007) (establishing the rights of the employer and the employee with regard to payment for medical treatment, and ultimately affording much discretion to the Appellate Panel); Turner v. S.C. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control, 377 S.C. 540, 546, 661 S.E.2d 118, 121 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding § 42-15-60 does not give claimants a unilateral right to select their treating physician).

AFFIRMED.    

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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