Powell v. McCall Farms

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

Billy Joseph
Powell, Employee, Appellant,

v.

McCall Farms,
Inc., Employer, and Companion Property and Casualty Group, Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From the Appellate Panel

South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-131

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Steve Wukela, Jr., of Florence, for
Appellant.

Carmelo B. Sammataro and J. Brandon
Hylton, both of Florence, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Billy Joseph Powell appeals the order of the
Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
(Appellate Panel) reversing the single commissioner's finding that Powell
suffered a compensable work-related injury.  On appeal, Powell argues the
Appellate Panel erred in (1) disregarding Dr. Rodney Alan's testimony; (2)
disregarding Powell's testimony concerning his injury; and (3) reversing the
single commissioner's finding that Powell's July 19, 2009 injury was causally
related to the original March 31, 2009 left knee injury.  We affirm.[1]

"The [Appellate Panel]
is the ultimate fact finder in Workers' Compensation
cases and is not bound by the [s]ingle [c]ommissioner's findings of
fact."  Pack v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 381 S.C. 526, 532, 673
S.E.2d 461, 464 (Ct. App. 2009).  "[The
Appellate Panel] shall weigh the evidence as presented at the initial hearing
and, if good grounds are shown, make its own findings of fact and reach its own conclusions of law consistent or inconsistent with those
of the [s]ingle [c]ommissioner."  Id.  "[W]hile medical testimony is entitled to great respect, the fact finder may disregard it if other competent evidence is
presented."  Potter v. Spartanburg Sch. Dist. 7, 395 S.C. 17, 23,
716 S.E.2d 123, 126 (Ct. App. 2011).  Accordingly,
"[t]he final determination of witness credibility
and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Appellate Panel."  Id.  

We find substantial evidence
exists to support the Appellate Panel's findings that Powell did not suffer a
compensable work-related injury.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(e)
(Supp. 2011) (providing the appellate court must affirm a decision of the
Appellate Panel when substantial evidence exists to support the decision).  Here,
Powell testified the pain subsided shortly after the fall, and he was able to
perform his work duties without any difficulty on the day of the fall. 
Additionally, Dr. Alan, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed Powell with severe
arthritis resulting in cartilage loss and a meniscus tear.  Dr. Alan also testified
his medical notes indicated Powell had told him he had the knee pain for more
than a year and he could not identify a particular injury or overuse that could
have caused or contributed to the pain in his knees.  Dr. Alan stated Powell's
work did not cause the arthritis. 

Moreover, because substantial
evidence supports the Appellate Panel's findings that the March 31, 2009 injury
was not a compensable work-related injury, this court need not address Powell's
argument that the March 31, 2009 injury was causally related to the July 19,
2009 injury.  See 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 the determination of a prior
issue is dispositive). 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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