Kelley v. The Kroger Company

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

Roger Dale Kelley, deceased, Employee, Appellant,

v.

The Kroger Company, Employer, and The Kroger Co.
c/o Sedgwick CMS, Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001324

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-258
Heard April 15, 2015 – Filed May 20, 2015

AFFIRMED

Lola Stradford Richey, of Richey & Richey, PA, of
Greenville, for Appellant.

M. Chad Abramson and Weston Adams III, both of
McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, of Columbia, and
Helen Faith Hiser, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie,
LLC, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In this workers' compensation action, Lynn Kelley argues the
Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel)
erred in (1) applying the incorrect standard in determining whether her husband,
Roger Kelley, was subjected to unusual and extraordinary exertion in the course of
employment or to unusual or extraordinary conditions of employment and (2)
finding she presented no evidence the heat and the work environment contributed
to his fatal heart attack. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b) and the following
authorities: Black v. Barnwell Cnty., 243 S.C. 531, 535-36, 134 S.E.2d 753, 755
(1964) (holding a heart attack is compensable if the employee was subjected to
either unusual or extraordinary exertion or strain in the course of the employment
or to unusual and extraordinary conditions of employment and the employee's heart
attack is causally connected to the unusual and extraordinary conditions or
exertion); Frame v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 527, 593 S.E.2d 491, 494 (Ct.
App. 2004) (holding the substantial evidence rule governs the standard of review in
a workers' compensation decision); Shuler v. Gregory Elec., 366 S.C. 435, 440,
622 S.E.2d 569, 571 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating the Appellate Panel's decision must
be affirmed if substantial evidence in the record supports it); Stone v. Traylor
Bros., 360 S.C. 271, 274, 600 S.E.2d 551, 552 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting this court
may reverse when the decision is affected by an error of law); Ross v. Am. Red
Cross, 298 S.C. 490, 492, 381 S.E.2d 728, 729-30 (1989) (stating the Appellate
Panel is the ultimate fact finder in workers' compensation cases); Sharpe v. Case
Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999) ("The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the
[Appellate Panel's] finding from being supported by substantial evidence.");
Anderson v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 343 S.C. 487, 492-93, 541 S.E.2d 526, 528 (2001)
(holding the factual findings of the Appellate Panel are conclusive when the
evidence conflicts, either by different witnesses or the testimony of the same
witness).

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

AFFIRMED.