Mayers v. OSI Group

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

Tina Mayers, Appellant,

v.

OSI Group, LLC/Amick Farms, and Federal Insurance Co., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000414

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-281 Heard March 19, 2014 – Filed July 9, 2014

AFFIRMED

Charles Edward Johnson, Sr., of Charles E. Johnson, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Kristian Melissa Cross and Logan McCombs Wells, both of Collins & Lacy, P.C., of Columbia and Greenville, respectively, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In this workers' compensation appeal, Tina Mayers argues the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission ("Appellate Panel")

erred in finding she failed to satisfy the compensability requirements for a repetitive trauma injury pursuant to section 42-1-172 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2013). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Hargrove v. Titan Textile Co., 360 S.C. 276, 288, 599 S.E.2d 604, 610 (Ct. App. 2004) ("A reviewing court may reverse or modify a decision of an agency if the findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions of that agency are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record."); Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 527, 593 S.E.2d 491, 495 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court "may not substitute its judgment for that of the [Appellate Panel] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but may reverse where the decision is affected by an error of law"); Bass v. Isochem, 365 S.C. 454, 468, 617 S.E.2d 369, 376 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The Appellate Panel is the ultimate fact finder in [w]orkers' [c]ompensation cases and is not bound by the [s]ingle [c]ommissioner's findings of fact."); Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 23, 716 S.E.2d 123, 126 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Appellate Panel."); § 42-1-172(D) (stating a repetitive trauma injury is compensable "only if it is established by medical evidence that there is a direct causal relationship between the condition under which the work is performed and the injury"); Hargrove, 360 S.C. at 293-94, 599 S.E.2d at 613 ("Expert medical testimony is designed to aid the Appellate Panel in coming to the correct conclusion. . . . Although medical testimony is entitled to great respect, the fact finder may disregard it if there is other competent evidence in the record."); Tiller v. Nat'l Health Care Ctr. of Sumter, 334 S.C. 333, 340, 513 S.E.2d 843, 846 (1999) ("[T]he [Appellate Panel] determines the weight and credit to be given to the expert testimony[, and o]nce admitted, expert testimony is to be considered just like any other testimony."); Jennings v. Chambers Dev. Co., 335 S.C. 249, 254, 516 S.E.2d 453, 456 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating that "[t]he claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.