Upshaw v. SCDEW ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Anthony Upshaw, Appellant,
    v.
    South Carolina Department of Employment and
    Workforce and Urban Services Group, Inc., Respondents.
    Appellate Case No. 2011-204326
    Appeal From the Administrative Law Court
    John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-523
    Submitted September 4, 2012 – Filed September 12, 2012
    AFFIRMED
    Susan J. Firimonte, of Florence, and Daniel R. Unumb,
    of Columbia, both of South Carolina Legal Services, for
    Appellant.
    Brenda L. Gorski, of the South Carolina Department of
    Employment and Workforce, of Columbia, for
    Respondents.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities:
    1. As to whether the Administrative Law Court (ALC) erred in finding Upshaw
    was discharged for cause: Risher v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 
    393 S.C. 198
    , 204, 
    712 S.E.2d 428
    , 431 (2011) ("A decision of the ALC should be
    upheld . . . if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record."); Murphy v.
    S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 
    396 S.C. 633
    , 639, 
    723 S.E.2d 191
    , 194-95
    (2012) ("When finding substantial evidence to support the ALC's decision, the
    [appellate c]ourt need only determine that, based on the record as a whole,
    reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion."); 
    S.C. Code Ann. § 41-35
    -
    120(2) (Supp. 2011) (stating a person may become partially ineligible for
    unemployment benefits, and the maximum benefit amount may be reduced, if
    SCDEW finds that the person was discharged for cause); Mickens v. Southland
    Exch.-Joint Venture, 
    305 S.C. 127
    , 130, 
    406 S.E.2d 363
    , 365 (1991) (stating a
    discharge for cause is justified when an employee disregards the standard of
    behavior that the employer can rightfully expect from the employee).
    2. As to Upshaw's remaining issues: Burke v. AnMed Health, 
    393 S.C. 48
    , 54, 
    710 S.E.2d 84
    , 87 (Ct. App. 2011) (stating a contemporaneous objection is required to
    preserve an issue for appellate review); Herron v. Century BMW, 
    395 S.C. 461
    ,
    465, 
    719 S.E.2d 640
    , 642 (2011) (stating an issue cannot be raised for the first time
    on appeal).
    AFFIRMED.1
    SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-UP-523

Filed Date: 9/12/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024