Pasley v. TransAgri, Inc ( 2019 )

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
Clifford Pasley, Claimant/Appellant,
v.
TransAgri, Inc./Leonard Enterprises, Employer,
and
South Carolina Uninsured Employer's Fund, Insurer,
Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2016-000422
Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-063
Submitted January 1, 2019 – Filed February 6, 2019
AFFIRMED
Frank Anthony Barton, of West Columbia, for Appellant.
Margaret Mary Urbanic, of Clawson & Staubes, LLC, of
Charleston, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Thomas v. 5 Star Transp., 412 S.C. 1, 9, 770 S.E.2d 183, 187 (Ct. App.
2015) ("In workers' compensation cases, the Appellate Panel is the ultimate finder
of fact."); Adams v. Texfi Indus., 341 S.C. 401, 404, 535 S.E.2d 124, 125 (2000)
("Courts will not overturn the factual findings of the [Appellate Panel] unless they
are clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on
the whole record."); Thomas, 412 S.C. at 9, 770 S.E.2d at 187 ("[T]he possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence."
(alteration by court) (quoting Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n,
282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984))); Adams, 341 S.C. at 404, 535
S.E.2d at 125 ("'Substantial evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the
evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which,
considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the
conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order to
justify its action." (quoting Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304,
306 (1981))); Thomas, 412 S.C. at 9, 770 S.E.2d at 187 ("When the evidence is
conflicting over a factual issue, the findings of the Appellate Panel are
conclusive.").1
AFFIRMED.2
KONDUROS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.
1
Clifford Pasley's argument that his workplace injury aggravated a preexisting
condition is unpreserved. See Robbins v. Walgreens, 375 S.C. 259, 266, 652
S.E.2d 90, 94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("[M]atter[s] . . . not argued before the single
commissioner or the Appellate Panel [are] waived . . . . It is not appropriate for
this court to review the issue for the first time on appeal.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.