Blackwell v. Haier Refrigerators ( 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
Marion G. Blackwell, Employee/Claimant, Respondent,
v.
Haier Refrigerators, Employer, and the Hartford, Carrier,
Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2011-198007
Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-458
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed July 25, 2012
AFFIRMED
Candace G. Hindersman, of Willson Jones Carter &
Baxley, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellants.
Holly Saleeby Atkins, of Holly Saleeby Atkins, LLC, and
Stephen B. Samuels, of Samuels Law Firm, LLC, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Haier Refrigerators (Employer) and The Hartford (Carrier)
appeal the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Commission (the Appellate Panel) finding Marion G. Blackwell
(Employee) sustained a compensable injury to her left shoulder, ordering Employer
to pay for diagnostic studies and treatment for this injury, and awarding Employee
temporary total benefits for any missed periods of work. On appeal, Employer
argues the Appellate Panel erred in finding Employee sustained a compensable
injury to her left shoulder. Because we find substantial evidence exists to support
the Appellate Panel's finding that Employee sustained a compensable injury to her
left shoulder, 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."); id. ("Any review of the [Appellate Panel]'s
factual findings is governed by the substantial evidence standard."); id.("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."); Hieronymus v. Hamrick, 385 S.C. 1, 5, 682
S.E.2d 512, 514 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions does not prevent the Appellate Panel's conclusions
from being supported by substantial evidence."); id. ("The final determination
of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to
the Appellate Panel."); id. at 7-8, 682 S.E.2d at 515 ("'If a medical expert is
unwilling to state with certainty a connection between an accident and an
injury, the "expression of a cautious opinion" may support an award if there
are facts outside the medical testimony that also support an award.'" (quoting
Tiller v. Nat'l Health Care Ctr. of Sumter, 334 S.C. 333, 340, 513 S.E.2d 843,
846 (1999))); id. at 8, 682 S.E.2d at 515 ("Proof that a claimant sustained an
injury may be established by circumstantial and direct evidence where
circumstances lead an unprejudiced mind to reasonably infer the injury was
caused by the accident." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.