Edwards v. SCPS

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

Matthew Edwards, Employee, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Public Safety, Employer, and State
Accident Fund, Carrier, Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001154

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-021
Heard November 6, 2018 – Filed January 9, 2019

AFFIRMED

John Kirkman Moorhead, of Krause Moorhead &
Draisen, PA, of Anderson, for Appellant.

Zachary McIver Smith, of Willson Jones Carter &
Baxley, P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Michael Edwards sustained an admitted injury to his back on
July 16, 2012, while working at the South Carolina Department of Public Safety
(Employer). Edwards appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the Workers'
Compensation Commission (the Appellate Panel), arguing it erred in finding (1) he
was not entitled to a lump sum payment1 and (2) he was not permanently and
totally disabled. We affirm the Appellate Panel's finding regarding permanent and
total disability because it was supported by substantial evidence in the record. See
Nicholson v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 411 S.C. 381, 384, 769 S.E.2d 1, 2 (2015)
("On appeal from [the Appellate Panel], this [c]ourt can reverse or modify the
decision if it is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record."); Fishburne v.
ATI Sys. Int'l, 384 S.C. 76, 85, 681 S.E.2d 595, 600 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[T]he
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported by substantial
evidence." (alteration in original) (quoting Palmetto All., Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv.
Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984))). Edwards argues the
Appellate Panel incorrectly relied on his refusal to have a spinal cord stimulator to
deny permanent and total disability; however, we disagree. The Appellate Panel
considered the medical records, the treating physician's deposition testimony, the
functional capacity evaluations, and the vocational report to find Edwards was not
permanently and totally disabled. Although there is conflicting evidence in the
record, we find substantial evidence supports the Appellate Panel's finding that
Edwards is able to return to some kind of employment. See Jordan v. Kelly
Co., 381 S.C. 483, 487, 674 S.E.2d 166, 169 (2009) (explaining when "the record
contains conflicting evidence, this [c]ourt is not in a position to weigh the evidence
presented in a workers' compensation hearing").

Accordingly, the Appellate Panel's order is

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1
At oral arguments, the parties indicated they settled this issue in October 2017
and conceded it was no longer an issue before the court. Thus, we do not address
it.