DeBoe v. BK Industries

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

Rawley Edmund
DeBoe, Respondent,

v.

BK Industries,
Employer, and Indemnity Insurance Company of America, Carrier, Appellants.

Appeal From the Appellate Panel

South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-326

Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012

AFFIRMED

Russell T. Infinger and Kirsten E. Small, both
of Greenville, for Appellants.

Alan R. Cochran, of Greenville; and Ben C.
Harrison and Jeremy A. Dantin, both of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: BK Industries
(Employer) appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina
Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) awarding Rawley Edmund DeBoe
(Employee) temporary total disability benefits for a change in condition to his
work-related injury.  On appeal, Employer argues the Appellate Panel erred in
(1) finding Employee suffered from a change in condition to his work-related
injury and (2) denying Employer's motion to keep the record open. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the Appellate Panel
erred in finding Employee suffered from a
change in condition to his work-related injury: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-17-90(A) (Supp. 2011) (providing a claimant's
workers' compensation award may be modified by the Appellate Panel "on
proof by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a change of
condition caused by the original injury"); Clark v. Aiken Cnty. Gov't,
366 S.C. 102, 111, 620 S.E.2d 99, 103 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The determination
of whether a claimant experiences a change of condition is a question for the
fact finder. We must therefore affirm if substantial evidence supports the
[Appellate Panel's] finding." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Robbins
v. Walgreens & Broadspire Servs., Inc., 375 S.C. 259, 265, 652 S.E.2d
90, 93-94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A change in condition occurs when the claimant
experiences a change in physical condition as a result of her original injury,
occurring after the first award.  Thus, the issue before the Appellate Panel is
sharply restricted to the question of extent of improvement or worsening of the
injury on which the original award was based." (citation and quotation
marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the Appellate Panel
erred in denying Employer's motion to keep the record open: S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67–613(B) (Supp. 2011) (providing
the Appellate Panel has the authority to postpone a scheduled hearing in a
workers' compensation matter for "good cause," which includes such
reasons as the need for additional discovery); Trotter v. Trane Coil
Facility, 393 S.C. 637, 645, 714 S.E.2d 289, 293 (2011) ("The granting
or refusal of a request for a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the [Appellate
Panel], whose ruling will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion
is shown.  For appellate purposes, an abuse of discretion occurs where the
ruling is based on an error of law or, where the ruling is grounded upon
factual findings, is without evidentiary support. . . .  Where a party is not
prejudiced by the denial of a motion for a continuance, reversal is not
required." (citations omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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