Simpson v. Omnova Solutions

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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

Linda C. Simpson, Employee,       
Respondent,

v.

Omnova Solutions, Inc., Employer, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company,
Carrier,        Appellants.

Appeal From Chester County

Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-635

Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed December
16, 2004

AFFIRMED

W. Hugh McAngus, of Columbia, for Appellant.

William T. Toal and Luther J. Battiste, III, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission
issued a default order pursuant to 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-709 (2003) affirming
the single commissioner’s decision that Linda Simpson’s claim against Omnova
Solutions, Inc. was compensable.  The order stated that upon inspection of “the
vote sheets that two of the three panel members registered intent within
ten days [to vote] but did not officially ‘vote’ by checking a vote category
. . . [and] there is no appropriate ‘category’ for soliciting additional evidence
and holding issues in abeyance.”  The circuit court affirmed, concluding the
appellate panel failed to register a vote on Simpson’s claim within the time
prescribed by its own regulations and was therefore deemed to have affirmed
the decision of the single commissioner.  Omnova Solutions and its insurance
carrier, Pacific Employers Insurance Company, appeal. 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule
220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-709(C)
(2003) (“The Commissioners reviewing a case may confer and shall vote within
ten days of the date of review.”); 25A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67-709(F) (2003)
(“If a Commissioner fails to register a vote within the periods referred to
above, the Commissioner is deemed to have registered a vote affirming the Hearing
Commissioner and may not vote otherwise.”); Byerly v. Conner, 307 S.C.
441, 444, 415 S.E.2d 796, 799 (1992) (stating an appellate court will give a
regulation’s terms their plain and ordinary meaning and may not resort to a
forced interpretation to limit or expand the regulation’s operation); Goodman v.
City of Columbia, 318 S.C. 488, 491, 458 S.E.2d 531 (1995) (stating the
commission’s decision interpreting its own regulations is given great deference);
Brown v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C.
507, 560 S.E.2d 410 (2002) (recognizing the court generally gives deference
to an administrative agency’s interpretation of an applicable statute or its
own regulation and will reject the agency’s interpretation only when the plain
language of the statute is contrary to that interpretation).

AFFIRMED.

STILWELL, BEATTY, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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