Gul v. Kohler 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

Nikolay Gul, Claimant, Appellant,

v.

Kohler Company, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-000853

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-023
Submitted October 1, 2018 – Filed January 9, 2019

AFFIRMED

David Lee Williford, II, of Davis, Snyder, Williford &
Lehn, P.A. of Greenville, for Appellant.

Grady Larry Beard, Jasmine Denise Smith, and Nicolas
Lee Haigler, all of Robinson Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this workers' compensation action, Nikolay Gul appeals an
order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission denying him benefits from Kohler Company, arguing the Appellate
Panel erred in (1) affording no weight to his doctor's opinions and (2) failing to
find his asthma did not arise out of, and in the course of, his employment. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to Gul's argument the Appellate Panel afforded no weight to Dr.
Feldman's records, evaluations, and opinions: Fishburne v. ATI Sys. Int'l, 384 S.C.
76, 85-86, 681 S.E.2d 595, 600 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Appellate Panel is the
sole fact finder in workers' compensation cases and any questions of credibility of
witnesses must be resolved by the Appellate Panel); Burnette v. City of Greenville,
401 S.C. 417, 427, 737 S.E.2d 200, 206 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Although medical
evidence 'is entitled to great respect,' the [Appellate Panel] is not bound by the
opinions of medical experts and may disregard medical evidence in favor of other
competent evidence in the record.").

2. As to Gul's argument the Appellate Panel erred in finding he failed to
establish a compensable occupational disease: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-11-10(A)
(2015) (defining an occupational disease as "a disease arising out of and in the
course of employment that is due to hazards in excess of those ordinarily incident
to employment and is peculiar to the occupation in which the employee is
engaged"); Fishburne, 384 S.C. at 85, 681 S.E.2d at 599 ("The Appellate Panel's
decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence in the record.");
Shealy v. Aiken Cty., 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000) ("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."); Langdale v. Harris
Carpets, 395 S.C. 194, 200, 717 S.E.2d 80, 83 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Where the
evidence is conflicting over a factual issue, the findings of the Appellate Panel are
conclusive."); Pack v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 381 S.C. 526, 536, 673 S.E.2d 461,
466-67 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The [Appellate Panel] need not accept or believe medical
or other expert testimony, even when it is unanimous, uncontroverted, or
uncontradicted."); Fishburne, 384 S.C. at 85, 681 S.E.2d at 600 ("[T]he possibility
of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence."
(alteration by court) (quoting Palmetto All., Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282
S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984))).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.