Ward v. The Pantry

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN
ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Joseph Richard
Ward, Respondent,

v.

The Pantry and
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-076

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 11, 2009

AFFIRMED

Pope D. Johnson, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Stephen B. Samuels, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The Pantry and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company (collectively the Carrier) appeal the circuit court’s affirmance of the
Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission’s order
(Appellate Panel) finding Joseph Ward suffered from a compensable change in
condition resulting from a work related injury to his back.  We affirm.[1] 

On
appeal, the Carrier contends the single commissioner erred in finding Ward
suffered a compensable change in condition resulting from his original work
injury.

We
agree with Ward that evidence supports the single commissioner's conclusion
that he suffered from a compensable change in condition.  The decisions of the Appellate
Panel must be affirmed if the factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.  Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436,
645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007).  "Substantial evidence is that evidence which,
in considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the
conclusion the Commission reached."  Id.  "A claimant may seek
to reopen an award under the Workers' Compensation Act if there has been a
change in condition."  Robbins v. Walgreens and Broadspire Serv., Inc.,
375 S.C. 259, 265, 652 S.E.2d 90, 93 (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."  Id. 

In the case at bar,
the single commissioner properly found Ward suffered from a compensable change
in condition resulting from his original work injury.  Substantial evidence in
the record supports the single commissioner's conclusion.  The Carrier
specifically asked Dr. Johnson in his first deposition if he could offer any
opinion as to the cause of Ward’s deteriorating back condition, and Johnson
stated if the results of the 2005 MRI showed a worsening of the disc problem in
L3-4, then it would be a continuation of Ward’s work injury shown in the 2001
MRI.  The results of the 2005 MRI after the first deposition confirmed Ward
suffered a worsening of the disc problem in L3-4.  Johnson’s testimony in the
first deposition, combined with the results of the 2005 MRI in the record,
strongly supports the inference that Ward's worsening back condition was
causally connected to his original work injury.  Accordingly, the single
commissioner correctly concluded Ward suffered from a compensable change in
condition, and the Appellate Panel and circuit court correctly affirmed the
single commissioner’s order.

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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