Auker v, Ridgeway Health and Rehab

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

Donald Auker, Appellant,

v.

Ridgeway Health
and Rehab and The Phoenix Insurance Company, Respondents.

Appeal from the Appellate Panel

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-510 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
November 28, 2011

AFFIRMED

Dennis N. Cannon, Jr., of Camden, for
Appellant.

R. Daniel Addison, of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Donald Auker
appeals the denial of his request for medical treatment for his left knee by
the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the
Appellate Panel).  On appeal, Auker argues the Appellate Panel erred in finding
(1) his claim was barred by res judicata and (2) he failed to carry his burden of proof in showing that his
current need for medical treatment for his left knee was proximately caused by
his right knee surgery.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the Appellate Panel
erred in finding Auker's claim was barred
by res judicata: Estridge v. Joslyn Clark Controls, Inc., 325 S.C. 532, 539-40, 482 S.E.2d 577, 581 (Ct.
App. 1997) ("The doctrine of res judicata prevents the relitigation of
issues previously decided between the parties.  The doctrine requires three
essential elements: (1) the judgment must be final, valid and on the merits;
(2) the parties in the subsequent action must be identical to those in the
first; and (3) the second action must involve matter properly included in the
first action.  The
doctrine of res judicata only acts to preclude relitigation of issues actually
litigated or which might have been litigated in the first action." (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2.  As to whether the Appellate Panel
erred in finding Auker failed to meet his burden of proof in showing his current need for medical treatment for
his left knee was proximately caused by his right knee surgery: Futch v.
McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting
an appellate court need not address appellant's remaining issues when its
determination of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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