Williams v. SC Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Williams v. SC Department of Corrections

DecidedJune 4, 2008

Docket2008-UP-290

StatusUnpublished

This text of Williams v. SC Department of Corrections (Williams v. SC Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. SC Department of Corrections, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

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

Ora Williams, Claimant, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Corrections, Employer, and State Accident Fund, as Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From Richland County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-290
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 4, 2008

AFFIRMED

Preston F. McDaniel and W. Ralph Garris, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Cynthia Burns Polk and Matthew C. Robertson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ora Williams appeals the circuit court's decision affirming the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Brunson v. Am. Koyo Bearings, 367 S.C. 161, 623 S.E.2d 870, (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a single commissioner's findings of fact and law, if not appealed from, become the law of the case); Reese v. CCI Const. Co., 334 S.C. 600, 604, 514 S.E.2d 144, 145 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[F]ailure to challenge ruling is abandonment of issue and precludes consideration on appeal; unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance." (citation omitted)); Anderson v. S.C. Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) ("[An] order would be affirmed under the two issue' rule if the plaintiff failed to appeal both grounds or if one of the grounds required affirmance."); Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 365, 644 S.E.2d 808, 811 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Under a second application of the two issue' rule, the appellate court will find it unnecessary to address all the grounds appealed where one requires affirmance.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Ora Williams, Claimant, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Corrections, Employer, and State Accident Fund, as Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From Richland County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-290
Submitted June 1, 2008 Filed June 4, 2008

AFFIRMED

Preston F. McDaniel and W. Ralph Garris, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Cynthia Burns Polk and Matthew C. Robertson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Ora Williams appeals the circuit court's decision affirming the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Brunson v. Am. Koyo Bearings, 367 S.C. 161, 623 S.E.2d 870, (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a single commissioner's findings of fact and law, if not appealed from, become the law of the case); Reese v. CCI Const. Co., 334 S.C. 600, 604, 514 S.E.2d 144, 145 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[F]ailure to challenge ruling is abandonment of issue and precludes consideration on appeal; unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance." (citation omitted)); Anderson v. S.C. Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) ("[An] order would be affirmed under the two issue' rule if the plaintiff failed to appeal both grounds or if one of the grounds required affirmance."); Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 365, 644 S.E.2d 808, 811 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Under a second application of the two issue' rule, the appellate court will find it unnecessary to address all the grounds appealed where one requires affirmance.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. SC Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-sc-department-of-corrections-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack