Weaver v. SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs ( 2016 )

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
Wanda Weaver, Employee, Appellant,
v.
SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs, Employer,
and State Accident Fund, Carrier,
Of whom SC Dept. of Disabilities and Special Needs is
the Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2015-001169
Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-451
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016
AFFIRMED
Henry Thad White, Jr., of Lucas Warr & White, of
Florence, for Appellant.
Kerri Brown Rupert and Ashley Ryon Kirkham, both of
Collins & Lacy, PC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Wanda Weaver appeals the Appellate Panel's order, arguing the
Appellate Panel erred by (1) finding she failed to meet her burden of proving the
work-related accident caused or aggravated her shoulder injury and (2) not
remanding the case to the single commissioner to determine causation on her
injury. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to issue one: Wise v. Wise, 394 S.C. 591, 597, 716 S.E.2d 117, 120 (Ct. App.
2011) ("The Appellate Panel's decision must be affirmed if supported by
substantial evidence in the record."); Hutson v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 399 S.C.
381, 387, 732 S.E.2d 500, 503 (2012) ("Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla
of evidence nor evidence viewed from one side, but such evidence, when the whole
record is considered, as would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the
[Appellate Panel] reached." (quoting Shealy v. Aiken Cty., 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535
S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000))).
2. As to issue two: Smith v. NCCI, Inc., 369 S.C. 236, 256, 631 S.E.2d 268, 279
(Ct. App. 2006) ("Only issues raised and ruled upon by the [Appellate Panel] are
cognizable on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.