Pasley v. TransAgri, Inc

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 6, 2019
• Docket: 2019-UP-063
• Status: Unpublished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

Clifford Pasley, Claimant/Appellant,

v.

TransAgri, Inc./Leonard Enterprises, Employer,

and

South Carolina Uninsured Employer's Fund, Insurer, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000422

Appeal From Richland County G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-063 Submitted January 1, 2019 – Filed February 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Frank Anthony Barton, of West Columbia, for Appellant.

Margaret Mary Urbanic, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Thomas v. 5 Star Transp., 412 S.C. 1, 9, 770 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App. 2015) ("In workers' compensation cases, the Appellate Panel is the ultimate finder of fact."); Adams v. Texfi Indus., 341 S.C. 401, 404, 535 S.E.2d 124, 125 (2000) ("Courts will not overturn the factual findings of the [Appellate Panel] unless they are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record."); Thomas, 412 S.C. at 9, 770 S.E.2d at 187 ("[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence." (alteration by court) (quoting Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984))); Adams, 341 S.C. at 404, 535 S.E.2d at 125 ("'Substantial evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to justify its action." (quoting Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981))); Thomas, 412 S.C. at 9, 770 S.E.2d at 187 ("When the evidence is conflicting over a factual issue, the findings of the Appellate Panel are conclusive.").1

AFFIRMED.2

KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

1 Clifford Pasley's argument that his workplace injury aggravated a preexisting condition is unpreserved. See Robbins v. Walgreens, 375 S.C. 259, 266, 652 S.E.2d 90, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[M]atter[s] . . . not argued before the single commissioner or the Appellate Panel [are] waived . . . . It is not appropriate for this court to review the issue for the first time on appeal."). 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.