Hall v. US Food Services

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD
NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Mervin Wilber Hall,       
Appellant,

v.

US Food Services, Employer, and Mac Risk Management,       
Respondents.

Appeal From York County

Paul E. Short, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-510

Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed October
13, 2004

AFFIRMED

Stephen Benjamin Samuels, of Lexington, for Appellant.

Ellen H. Goodwin, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Mervin Wilber Hall appeals a
circuit court order that affirms the denial of workers’ compensation benefits
by his employer US Food Services.  We affirm. [1]

Hall contends he suffered a back injury while on
the job.  Food Services disputes that.  The single commissioner denied Hall’s
claim, pointing to his lack of credibility, his failure to carry the burden
of proof, and the believability of Food Services’ witnesses.  An appellate
panel affirmed the single commissioner.  The circuit court, in turn,
affirmed the appellate panel.

Hall claims he injured his back when he
adjusted his seat while driving a company truck.  An investigation conducted
by Food Services, however, showed the seat could not be moved either forward
or backward because of a broken handle used to adjust the seat. 

At the hearing before the single commissioner,
Hall acknowledged he had sustained a prior back injury when he adjusted a seat
on a company bus while employed elsewhere.  Hall admitted to having suffered
other prior back injuries as well, but only after Food Services confronted him
at the hearing before the single commissioner with medical records.  Hall
failed to report these injuries to the doctors who treated him for the alleged
injury that led to the present claim because he “didn’t think [the information]
was relevant.”

I.

Hall first argues the circuit court erred in affirming
the order of the workers’ compensation commission because the commission failed
to make specific and detailed findings of fact.

Findings of fact in a final decision of an administrative
body, such as the workers’ compensation commission, must contain “a concise
and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings.”  S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-350 (2002).  The commission satisfied this requirement here.  
See Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 159-160, 519 S.E.2d
102, 105 (1999) (holding the findings of the workers’ compensation commission
that a claimant did not suffer a work-related injury were sufficient where the
commission based its decision on the lack of credibility of the claimant and
on the credibility of the employer’s witnesses)

The commission found as a fact that Hall did not
sustain any injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. 
 The “concise and explicit statement” of the underlying facts that support
this finding are the following: (1) Hall “was not credible due to inconsistencies,
vague answers, and misstatements,” and failed “to disclose material information
until confronted with documentation”; (2) Hall gave “inconsistent answers in
regards to prior injuries,” concealed the existence “of prior injuries until
confronted with . . . medical documentation” reflecting those injuries; and
(3) the commission viewed the employer’s witnesses as being “credible” when
they testified Hall said he was going to sue the company “if he did not get
a new seat in his truck.”

II.

Hall next questions the commission’s finding that
Hall “failed to prove his case.”  He says there is “one reason” for this finding:
the commission found Hall “was not a credible witness.”  This statement is not
quite correct.  The commission also found the employer’s witnesses were credible.
As we noted above, these findings are sufficient to support the commission’s
decision.  Sharpe, 336 S.C. at 159-160, 519 S.E.2d at 105.  Determinations
regarding the credibility of witnesses in a workers’ compensation case are singularly
for the commission.  Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d
438, 442 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSY, ANDERSON, and WILLIAMS, JJ. concur.

[1] This case is decided without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.