Windham v. Rolling Green Village

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 27, 2008
• Docket: 2008-UP-326
• Status: Unpublished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

Sung Windham

Appellant,

v.

Rolling Green Village, Employer and American Home Assurance Co./Gallagher Basset Services, Inc., Carrier	Respondents.

__________

Appeal From Greenville County

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-326

Submitted June 2, 2008 – Filed June 27, 2008

AFFIRMED

Kathryn Williams, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Weston Adams, III, Jillian M. Benson, and Ashley B.

Stratton, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Sung Windham appeals from a circuit court order affirming the denial of continuing medical treatment for her psychological injury.  Windham argues the circuit court erred in holding substantial evidence supported the finding of the Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission that Windham is not entitled to continuing medical treatment for her compensable psychological claim.  Windham further asserts that the Appellate Panel’s decision is affected by an error of law. 

We affirm[1] the order of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Anderson v. Baptist Medical Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 492, 541 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2001) (the findings of the Appellate Panel are presumed correct and will be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence on the record);  Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000) (“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.”).  As to the error of law issue:  Elam v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 23, 602 S.E.2d 772, 779-80 (2004) (holding that issues and arguments are preserved for appellate review only when they are raised to and ruled on by the lower court).

          AFFIRMED.

 WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

---

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