Tompkins v. SCESC

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 Cynthia A. Tompkins, Appellant, v. South Carolina Employment Security Commission and Self Regional Healthcare, Respondents. Appeal From Greenwood County D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-478 Heard September 15, 2011 – Filed October 26, 2011 AFFIRMED James Adam Russell, of Greenwood, for Appellant. Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., of Columbia, and Jennifer K. Dunlap, of Charleston, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: In this action for unemployment benefits, Cynthia Tompkins argues the circuit court erred in finding substantial evidence supported the South Carolina Employment Security Commission's (Commission) finding that she violated a Self Regional Healthcare (Self) policy. In the alternative, if the Commission's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, Tompkins argues the circuit court erred in affirming the Commission's holding that Self discharged Tompkins for cause, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: 1. As to the Commission's finding that Tompkins was ultimately responsible for a patient's missing chart, we find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's decision. 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."); McEachern v. S.C. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 370 S.C. 553, 557, 635 S.E.2d 644, 646-47 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding the Commission is an agency governed by the Administrative Procedures Act whose decision will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record on appeal). 2. As to whether the circuit court erred in affirming the Commission's holding that Self discharged Tompkins for cause, we find there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision. See Mickens v. Southland Exch.-Joint Venture, 305 S.C. 127, 130, 406 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1991) (holding that in determining a violation of the standard of behavior an employer can rightfully expect from an employee, "where the employer's request is reasonable, a refusal to comply will constitute misconduct, justifying a discharge for cause"); Bartley, 392 S.C. at 306, 709 S.E.2d at 622 ("As a general rule, this Court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are supported by substantial evidence."). AFFIRMED. HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.