Birch v. Mail Contractors of America

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 Donald W. Birch, Appellant, v. Mail Contractors of America and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, Respondents. Appeal From Union County John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-046 Submitted January 2, 2008 – Filed January 14, 2008 AFFIRMED G. William Thomason, of Greenwood, for Appellant. Jeffrey S. Jones, and Jason A. Griggs, both of Greenville, for Respondents. PER CURIAM: Donald Birch appeals the circuit court’s order affirming the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel). Birch contends the circuit court erred in finding substantial evidence existed for the Appellate Panel to hold Birch did not sustain physical and permanent brain damage. Birch also maintains the Panel erred in reversing the single commissioner’s finding of brain damage. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Corbin v. Kohler Co., 351 S.C. 613, 617, 571 S.E.2d 92, 95 (Ct. App. 2002) (“In an appeal from the Appellate Panel, neither this court nor the circuit court may substitute its judgment for that of the Appellate Panel as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but it may reverse when the decision is affected by an error of law.”); Lockridge v. Santens of Am., Inc., 344 S.C. 511, 515, 544 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2001) (“Any review of the [Appellate Panel’s] factual findings is governed by the substantial evidence standard . . . Substantial evidence is evidence that, in viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion that the [Appellate Panel] reached.”); Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 517, 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996) (“Arguments not raised to the workers’ compensation commission or to the circuit court are not preserved for appeal.”). AFFIRMED.[1] HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.