Lucas v. RNDC 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Carl E. Lucas, Employee, Respondent,

v.

RNDC of South Carolina, Employer, and Hartford
Indemnity, Carrier, Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2018-001553

Appeal From The South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-333
Submitted March 1, 2021 – Filed September 22, 2021

AFFIRMED

Kay Gaffney Crowe, of Barnes Alford Stork & Johnson,
LLP, of Columbia, for Appellants.

Thomas Pinckney Bellinger and Elizabeth McMahon
Pentz, both of McWhirter Bellinger & Associates, PA, of
Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellants, RNDC of South Carolina and Hartford Indemnity,
appeal the order of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission
awarding Carl E. Lucas certain workers' compensation benefits. Appellants
contend the Appellate Panel erred in (1) failing to make a specific finding of fact of
the date when Lucas reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and then in
determining his degree of disability at the time of his MMI; (2) affirming the
finding of the single commissioner that Lucas was totally and permanently
disabled and in ordering benefits paid in a lump sum; and (3) finding that the
carrier bore the expense of the treatment by one of Lucas's doctors, Dr. Jacocks,
and that Lucas's syncope was causally related to the back strain he suffered. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:

1. The issue of whether the Appellate Panel erred in failing to make a specific
finding of fact of the date when Lucas reached MMI and then in determining his
degree of disability at the time of his MMI is not preserved for our review. See
Bazen v. Badger R. Bazen Co., 388 S.C. 58, 65, 693 S.E.2d 436, 440 (Ct. App.
2010) (finding an issue raised on appeal in a workers' compensation case was not
preserved because the appellants failed to raise the issue to the Appellate Panel
after the single commissioner's ruling); Hilton v. Flakeboard Am. Ltd., 418 S.C.
245, 249, 791 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2016) ("Only issues raised to the [Appellate Panel]
within the application for review of the single commissioner's order are preserved
for review.").

2. We find substantial evidence, including unrefuted medical and vocational
evidence, supports the Appellate Panel's finding that Lucas is permanently and
totally disabled. See Trotter v. Trane Coil Facility, 393 S.C. 637, 644, 714 S.E.2d
289, 293 (2011) ("The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) establishes the
standard for judicial review of workers' compensation decisions."); Jordan v. Kelly
Co., 381 S.C. 483, 486, 674 S.E.2d 166, 168 (2009) (providing the appellate court
must affirm the findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel if they are supported
by substantial evidence); Burnette v. City of Greenville, 401 S.C. 417, 429, 737
S.E.2d 200, 206-07 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he determination of an injured employee's
impairment rating is more art than science, involving the consideration of evidence
the Commission may gather from the injured employee, medical and vocational
experts, and lay witnesses. . . ."); Dent v. E. Richland Cnty. Pub. Serv. Dist., 423
S.C. 193, 201, 813 S.E.2d 886, 890 (Ct. App. 2018) (holding the policy behind
allowing a claimant—whose injury falls under the scheduled member section—to
proceed under statutes providing general disability is that it allows a claimant
whose injury additionally affects other parts of the body the opportunity to
establish a disability greater than the presumptive disability provided for under the
scheduled member section); Wigfall v. Tideland Utils., Inc., 354 S.C. 100, 105, 580
S.E.2d 100, 102 (2003) ("[A] claimant may establish total disability under § 42-9-
10 by showing an injury . . . caused sufficient loss of earning capacity to render
him totally disabled."); id. at 108-09, 580 S.E.2d at 104 ("South Carolina
recognizes that a claimant may be totally disabled even though he is not altogether
incapacitated if such an injury prevents him from obtaining regular employment in
the labor market."). Further, in spite of their stated issue on appeal referencing
error in the award of a lump sum payment, Appellants make no argument at all
concerning the propriety of the lump sum award. Accordingly, this portion of their
stated issue on appeal is abandoned. See Fields v. Melrose Ltd. P'ship, 312 S.C.
102, 106, 439 S.E.2d 283, 285 (Ct. App. 1993) ("An issue raised on appeal but not
argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the
appellate court.").

3. We find substantial evidence from Dr. Jacocks supports the Appellate
Panel's finding that Lucas's syncope was casually related to his work injury. See
Jordan, 381 S.C. at 486, 674 S.E.2d at 168 (providing the appellate court must
affirm the findings of fact made by the Appellate Panel if they are supported by
substantial evidence); Shealy v. Aiken Cnty., 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."). As to Appellants' assertion that the Appellate Panel erred in finding the
carrier was responsible for Lucas's medical treatment from Dr. Jacocks because it
did not tend to lessen the degree of his disability or impairment, we question
whether this argument is preserved for our review. The only stated ground of
appeal raised to the Appellate Panel concerning the medical care of Dr. Jacocks
was that his treatment of Lucas "was not related to this injury and was not
authorized." Though such properly embraces Appellants' argument on appeal that
the syncope was not causally related to the injury, an assertion that Dr. Jacocks's
medical care "was not authorized" is too vague to encompass Appellants' argument
on appeal that payment for Dr. Jacocks's treatment was improper because it did not
tend to lessen the degree of Claimant's disability or impairment. See State v.
Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party need not use the
exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the
argument has been presented on that ground."); Bazen, 388 S.C. at 65, 693 S.E.2d
at 440 ("Only issues raised [to] and ruled upon by the [Appellate Panel] are
cognizable on appeal." (second alteration in original) (quoting Smith v. NCCI, Inc.,
369 S.C. 236, 256, 631 S.E.2d 268, 279 (Ct. App. 2006))); id. ("[O]nly issues
within the application for review are preserved for the [Appellate Panel]." (first
alteration in original) (quoting Creech v. Ducane Co., 320 S.C. 559, 564, 467
S.E.2d 114, 117 (Ct. App. 1995))). Nonetheless, even assuming this argument is
properly preserved, we would still affirm. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-60(C)
(2015) ("In cases in which total and permanent disability results, reasonable and
necessary nursing services, medicines, prosthetic devices, sick travel, medical,
hospital, and other treatment or care shall be paid during the life of the injured
employee, without regard to any limitation in this title including the maximum
compensation limit." (emphases added)); Dodge v. Bruccoli, Clark, Layman, Inc.,
334 S.C. 574, 581, 514 S.E.2d 593, 596 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[T]he fact a claimant has
reached [MMI] does not preclude a finding the claimant still may require
additional medical care or treatment.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and HUFF and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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