Robinette v. Capita Employer ( 2012 )

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
Kimball Robinette, Appellant,
v.
Capita Employer Resources and Key Risk, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2011-198987
Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-461
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 25, 2012
AFFIRMED
David Vance Benson and Garrett B. Johnson, of Elrod
Pope Law Firm, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
David A. Wilson and Michael A. Farry, of Horton,
Drawdy, Ward, Mullinax & Farry, PA, of Greenville, for
Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Kimball Robinette (Employee) appeals the order of the
Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the
Appellate Panel) denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits based on its
finding Employee's intoxication caused his injuries. On appeal, Employee argues
the Appellate Panel improperly concluded Respondents established the defense of
intoxication. Because we find substantial evidence exists to support the Appellate
Panel's finding that Employee's intoxication caused his injuries, we affirm1
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Lockridge v.
Santens of Am., Inc., 344 S.C. 511, 515, 544 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2001)
("The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for
decisions by the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. 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." (internal citations omitted)); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc.,
376 S.C. 338, 347, 656 S.E.2d 753, 757 (Ct. App. 2007) ("It is not within the
reviewing court's province to reverse findings of the Appellate Panel which are
supported by substantial evidence."); id. at 348, 656 S.E.2d at 758 ("The possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the
Appellate Panel]'s findings from being supported by substantial evidence."); id.
("Where there are conflicts in the evidence over a factual issue, the findings of the
Appellate Panel are conclusive.").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.