Travelers Insurance v. S.C. Second Injury Fund

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

Travelers
Insurance Company, Appellant,

v.

The South
Carolina Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

Appeal From Greenville County

 Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-211

Heard March 12, 2012 – Filed March 28,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Lawson Brenn Watson, of Greenville, for
Appellant.

Latonya Dilligard Edwards, of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this workers' compensation case,
Travelers Insurance Company appeals the circuit court's order affirming the
decision of the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission to deny
reimbursement to Travelers from the South Carolina Second Injury Fund. 
Travelers argues the Appellate Panel erred in finding it did not prove two
prerequisites to reimbursement: (1) that the claimant's preexisting impairments
constituted a hindrance or obstacle to his employment , and (2) that the
preexisting impairments combined with the claimant's subsequent work injury to
result in Travelers incurring substantially greater liability for the
claimant's compensation and medical costs.  We find no error of law in either
of the Commission's findings and find they are supported by substantial
evidence.   

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-400 (2003)[1] (setting out what an employer or insurance carrier must prove to receive
reimbursement); Bartley, 392 S.C. at 306, 709 S.E.2d at 622 ("[T]his
Court must affirm the findings of fact made by the Commission if they are supported
by substantial evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ.,
concur.

[1] Section 42-9-400 was amended in 2007.  2007 S.C. Acts
633-37.  The amended version "applies to injuries that occur on or
after" July 1, 2007.  Id.; see also Bartley v. Allendale
Cnty. Sch. Dist., 392 S.C. 300, 308 n.6, 709 S.E.2d 619, 623 n.6 (2011). 
Because the claimant's injury occurred in 2006, we use the prior version of §
42-9-400.