Tompkins v. SCESC

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

Cynthia A.
Tompkins, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina
Employment Security Commission and Self Regional Healthcare, Respondents.

Appeal From Greenwood County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-478 

Heard September 15, 2011 – Filed October
26, 2011

AFFIRMED

James Adam Russell, of Greenwood, for
Appellant.

Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., of Columbia, and
Jennifer K. Dunlap, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: In
this action for unemployment benefits, Cynthia Tompkins argues the circuit
court erred in finding substantial evidence supported the South Carolina
Employment Security Commission's (Commission) finding that she violated a Self
Regional Healthcare (Self) policy.  In the alternative, if the Commission's findings
of fact were supported by substantial evidence, Tompkins argues the circuit
court erred in affirming the Commission's holding that Self discharged Tompkins
for cause, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment benefits.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authority:

1.  As to the Commission's finding
that Tompkins was ultimately responsible for a patient's missing chart, we find
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's
decision.  See Bartley v. Allendale Cnty. Sch. Dist.,
392 S.C. 300, 306, 709 S.E.2d 619, 622 (2011) ("As a general rule, this
Court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are
supported by substantial evidence."); Id. ("The possibility of
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the
Commission's finding from being supported by substantial evidence."); McEachern
v. S.C. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 370 S.C. 553, 557, 635 S.E.2d 644, 646-47 (Ct.
App. 2006) (finding the Commission is an agency governed by the Administrative
Procedures Act whose decision will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous in
view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record on
appeal). 

2.  As to whether the circuit court
erred in affirming the Commission's holding that Self discharged Tompkins for
cause, we find there is substantial evidence to support the Commission's
decision.  See Mickens v. Southland Exch.-Joint Venture, 305 S.C.
127, 130, 406 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1991) (holding that in determining a violation
of the standard of behavior an employer can rightfully expect from an employee,
"where the employer's request is reasonable, a refusal to comply
will constitute misconduct, justifying a discharge for cause"); Bartley,
392 S.C. at 306, 709 S.E.2d at 622 ("As a general rule, this Court must
affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are supported by
substantial evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.