Murphy v. Bi-Lo

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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 Betty J. Murphy, Respondent, v. Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management, Appellants. Appeal From Dorchester County Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-428 Heard September 14, 2011 – Filed September 26, 2011 AFFIRMED Michael W. Burkett and Sarah S. Alphin, both of Columbia, for Appellants. John C. Land, III and Ricci Land Welch, both of Manning, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: This appeal arises out of an order of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) that was affirmed by the circuit court. Appellants Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management claim the Commission erred in: (1) granting Respondent Betty Murphy's motion to amend her pleadings to allege a new date of accident; (2) selecting a date of accident and theory of recovery not contained within Murphy's pleadings; (3) finding Murphy sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment; and (4) finding Murphy totally disabled by combining her right leg injury with preexisting impairments. We affirm. 1. As to Appellants' arguments that the Commission erred by granting Murphy's motion to amend her pleadings and by selecting a date of accident not contained in the pleadings, we find these arguments are not preserved for appellate review based on the record presented to this court on appeal. See Rule 210(h), SCACR ("Except as provided by Rule 212 and Rule 208(b)(1)(C) and (2), the appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on Appeal."); Leggett v. Smith, 386 S.C. 63, 74 n.3, 686 S.E.2d 699, 705 n.3 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting the appellant bears the burden of providing the court with an adequate record on appeal). Even if these arguments are preserved for review, we find no error of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5) (Supp. 2010) (providing the standard of review for appeals from the Commission); Callahan v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist, 375 S.C. 92, 95, 651 S.E.2d 311, 313 (2007) (holding an appellate court may reverse where the decision is affected by an error of law). 2. As to Appellants' arguments that the Commission erred by awarding Murphy benefits for her injury and by combining her injury with preexisting impairments, we find the Commission's order is supported by substantial evidence. See Bartley v. Allendale Cnty. Sch. Dist., 392 S.C. 300, 306, 709 S.E.2d 619, 622 (2011) ("As a general rule, this Court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are supported by substantial evidence."); Id. ("The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the Commission's finding from being supported by substantial evidence."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.