Outlaw v. Regan & Cantwell

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

Holly Outlaw, Appellant,

v.

Regan &
Cantwell, Employer, and Star Insurance Company, Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From Charleston County

 George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-497

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed
November 8, 2010

AFFIRMED

Joyce Farr Cheeks, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Terri Morrill Lynch, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Holly Outlaw sought workers' compensation benefits for fibromyalgia,
depression, irritable bowel syndrome, heart irregularity, lupus, and anxiety as
a result of mental stress related to her employment.[1]  The single
commissioner and the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission
(Appellate Panel) denied her benefits, and the circuit court affirmed.  Outlaw
appeals, arguing she proved exposure to unusual and extraordinary conditions
meriting an award of benefits. 

We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5) (Supp. 2009) (prohibiting
an appellate court from "substitut[ing] its judgment for the judgment of
the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact" in
administrative matters); Baxter v. Martin Bros., 368 S.C. 510, 513, 630
S.E.2d 42, 43 (2006) (holding an appellate court reviewing a workers'
compensation decision ascertains "whether the circuit court properly
determined whether the [A]ppellate [P]anel's findings of fact are supported by
substantial evidence in the record and whether the [P]anel's decision is
affected by an error of law"); S.C. Second Injury Fund v. Liberty Mut.
Ins. Co., 353 S.C. 117, 122, 576 S.E.2d 199, 202 (Ct. App. 2003) ("'Substantial
evidence' is evidence which, considering the entire record, would allow
reasonable minds to arrive at the same conclusion reached by the administrative
agency."); Etheredge v. Monsanto
Co., 349 S.C. 451, 454-55, 562 S.E.2d
679, 681 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating the Appellate Panel is the ultimate fact
finder in workers' compensation cases, is not bound by the single
commissioner's findings of fact, and makes the final determination of witness
credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence); Corbin v. Kohler Co.,
351 S.C. 613, 618, 571 S.E.2d 92, 95 (Ct. App. 2002) ("'[T]he
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial
evidence.'" (quoting Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 336 S.C. 266, 282,
519 S.E.2d 583, 591 (Ct. App. 1999))); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 42-1-160(B) & (C) (Supp. 2009) (defining which injuries are
compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act, requiring that mental injuries
unaccompanied by physical injuries be caused by employment conditions that
"were extraordinary and unusual in comparison to the normal conditions of
the particular employment," and excluding from compensability stress or
mental injuries resulting "from any event or series of events which are
incidental to normal employer/employee relations including, but not limited to,
personnel actions by the employer such as disciplinary actions, work
evaluations, . . . or terminations, except when these actions are taken in an
extraordinary and unusual manner"); Shealy v. Aiken County,
341 S.C. 448, 457, 535 S.E.2d 438, 443 (2000) (finding mental injuries
"are compensable accidental injuries under the statute when 'the emotional
stimuli or stressors are incident to or arise from unusual or extraordinary
conditions of employment,'" and requiring a court reviewing whether the
conditions of a claimant's employment were unusual or extraordinary to compare
the complained-of conditions to the usual and ordinary conditions of the
claimant's particular job (quoting Powell v. Vulcan Materials Co., 299
S.C. 325, 327, 384 S.E.2d 725, 726 (1989))). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] In a separate claim adjudicated contemporaneously
with this claim, Outlaw sought and received an award for carpal tunnel
syndrome. 

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