Escobar v. Federal Express ( 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
Jairo Escobar, Respondent,
v.
Federal Express Corporation, Employer, and Sedgwick
CMS, Servicing Agent, Appellants.
Appellate Case No. 2011-199467
Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-514
Submitted September 4, 2012 – Filed September 12, 2012
AFFIRMED
R. Daniel Addison, of Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe &
Garofalo, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Scott M. Anderson, of Grimes Teich Anderson, LLP, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Federal Express Corporation appeals the ruling of the Appellate
Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission ordering it to
provide a psychological evaluation to Jairo Escobar to determine whether his
depression is causally related to an admitted work injury. Federal Express argues
Escobar failed to meet his burden of proof and the order impermissibly shifts this
burden to Federal Express. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authority: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-80(A) (Supp. 2011) ("After an injury
and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his
employer or ordered by the commission, shall submit himself to examination, at
reasonable times and places, by a qualified physician or surgeon designated and
paid by the employer or the commission.").
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.