Weaver v. SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: November 9, 2016
• Docket: 2016-UP-451
• Status: Unpublished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

Wanda Weaver, Employee, Appellant,

v.

SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier,

Of whom SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs is the Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001169

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-451 Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016

AFFIRMED

Henry Thad White, Jr., of Lucas Warr & White, of Florence, for Appellant.

Kerri Brown Rupert and Ashley Ryon Kirkham, both of Collins & Lacy, PC, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Wanda Weaver appeals the Appellate Panel's order, arguing the Appellate Panel erred by (1) finding she failed to meet her burden of proving the work-related accident caused or aggravated her shoulder injury and (2) not remanding the case to the single commissioner to determine causation on her injury. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to issue one: Wise v. Wise, 394 S.C. 591, 597, 716 S.E.2d 117, 120 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The Appellate Panel's decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record."); Hutson v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 399 S.C. 381, 387, 732 S.E.2d 500, 503 (2012) ("Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence viewed from one side, but such evidence, when the whole record is considered, as would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the [Appellate Panel] reached." (quoting Shealy v. Aiken Cty., 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000))).

2. As to issue two: Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 256, 631 S.E.2d 268, 279 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Only issues raised and ruled upon by the [Appellate Panel] are cognizable on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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