Qushon Inman v. GE Healthcare, Inc.

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

Qushon Inman, Appellant-Respondent,

v.

GE Healthcare, Inc., Employer, and Riverstone
International Ins., Carrier, Respondents-Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001766

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-319
Heard February 5, 2026 – Filed June 24, 2026

AFFIRMED

Stephen J. Wukela, of Wukela Law Firm, of Florence, for
Appellant/Respondent.

Nicolas L. Haigler and Meredith Ann Krzyston, of
Robinson Gray Stepp & Lafitte, LLC, of Columbia, for
Respondents/Appellants.

PER CURIAM: In this cross-appeal from the Appellate Panel of the Workers'
Compensation Commission, Qushon Inman argues the single commissioner and
Appellate Panel erred in denying his claim that he sustained a compensable injury
by accident to his back and in rejecting his assertion that this injury aggravated a
preexisting condition. GE Healthcare, Inc. and its insurer (collectively, GE) argue
the Appellate Panel erred in affirming the portion of the single commissioner's
order overruling their evidentiary objections and allowing into evidence a belated
causation opinion from an improper second deposition of Inman's treating
orthopedic surgeon. We affirm the denial of compensation.

Facts and Procedural History

In 2018, Inman began working at GE through a temp agency until GE hired him in
January 2021. During the hiring process, on December 24, 2020, Inman completed
a GE medical questionnaire inquiring about past or current health issues, including
back problems. Inman denied current back pain or problems and indicated:

I understand that any false answers or statements made
by me on this form will be sufficient grounds for
immediate discharge if I am employed, for refusal of
employment if I have not yet started work, and will make
me ineligible for any and all Company benefits, including
but not limited to medical and life insurance.

On December 26, 2020, Inman presented to McLeod Regional Medical Center
with a chief complaint of "lower back pain onset 1 1/2 months ago after exercising,
pain to bend or twist." Inman described this as "a stabbing pain in his lower back
and left leg" and rated the pain "a 10/10 in severity."

On March 19, 2021, Inman "felt a sharp pain in his back radiating to his legs and
arms" when he "jump[ed] from the trailer of an 18-wheeler to the dock in the
shipping department."

On March 22, 2021, Inman presented to the GE medical clinic and reported that he
"hurt his back some months ago. He referenced December 2020. He did not know
a specific event or what day he could have hurt his back. On March 23, Inman
presented to MUSC Florence (MUSCF) with complaints of "lower back pain that
started last [Friday], states it shoots down both legs and up his back, pain started at
work." Inman noted he "might have jumped off a truck wrong." He described the
onset quality as gradual and reported having "similar pain" in December 2020,
which has been "on and off since." MUSCF referred Inman to orthopedic surgeon
Gregory Palutsis and placed him out of work for three days.
Inman returned to MUSCF on March 24 with a chief complaint of "lower lumbar
pain that is radiating down his left leg to his calf but not past his calf. He states
when he sits up he also has some pain in his inguinal regions." Inman was
diagnosed with "acute left lumbar radiculopathy (primary)" and "left hip pain." He
received two injections and was placed out of work until April 2, 2021. Inman
again presented to MUSCF on March 29 with complaints of "left lower back pain
with radiation to the left lower leg for several months."

On April 1, 2021, Inman was evaluated by Christopher Huiet, PA-C of McLeod
Orthopedics Florence. According to a progress note,

On March 19, patient jumped out of an 18 wheeler at
work and noticed immediate onset of pain radiating from
the upper back to lower back and throughout the lower
extremities. More recently has complained of increased
pain involving both lower extremities. Lower extremity
pain [ ] is described as sharp and is associated with
intermittent numbness and tingling throughout multiple
toes of the feet. Denies previous history of axial spine
trauma. He reports history of lower back spasms which
began on December 23. He was evaluated on the 26th
and CT scan of lumbar spine was obtained. Patient states
his symptoms 100% resolved after a few days. No
further complaints. Patient rates his pain at a 10 on a
visual analog scale. Previous CT scan of the abdomen
and pelvis from December 26, 2021 shows no definitive
acute bony changes and L5-S1 disc degenerative
changes.

PA Huiet ordered an MRI of Inman's lumbar and thoracic spine, which revealed:

At L4-5, moderate disc bulge extends into the lateral
recesses. Small left central disc extrusion borders the
posterior aspect [with] the L5 ventral body measuring
approximately 0.6 cm transverse and traversing inferiorly
just beyond the margin of the superior endplate of L5.
Mild right neural foraminal narrowing. Central canal
patent. Facet hypertrophy.
At L5-Sl, moderate circumferential disc bulge with
superimposed left central disc protrusion. This narrows
the central canal with mass effect on the traversing
central left S1 nerve root. Mild bilateral neural foraminal
narrowing. Facet hypertrophy with a small amount of
fluid in both facet joints.

When Inman returned four days later for review of the MRIs, PA Huiet placed him
out of work indefinitely and referred him to Dr. Bruce Johnson and Dr. William
Edwards, both of McLeod Spine Center.

At Dr. Edwards's initial June 22, 2021 evaluation, Inman reported neck pain
radiating to both shoulders that began on March 19, 2021, when he jumped from
an 18-wheeler onto a loading dock and felt a sharp pain in his neck. He denied
radicular discomfort or prior neck issues but reported "some previous back issues."
After reviewing Inman's cervical, thoracic, and lumbar MRIs, Dr. Edwards
continued his out-of-work status and noted:

Patient has perplexing symptoms that seem out of
proportion to MRI findings. He describes difficulty
ambulating and appears to be legitimately having
difficulty with his ambulation. I have recommended
formal neurologic evaluation. At this point in time
would not recommend any surgical management though
he does have disc protrusion at C5-6. Follow up after
neurology evaluation. Tramadol given for pain.

On October 26, 2021, Inman returned to McLeod Spine Center for follow-up, and
Dr. Edwards referred him to physical therapy. Dr. Edwards next evaluated Inman
on February 17, 2022; the follow-up progress note states:

Patient presents low back pain and non-dermatomal
symptoms in both legs. This began after a work-related
injury in March of 2021. He relates that he is currently in
physical therapy that he believes is not helping. He also
complains of having trouble holding his bladder
beginning about a month ago. [He] underwent a nerve
examination by Dr. Skinner that showed no evidence of
nerve damage in left leg. He also complains of frequent
headaches and swelling at the base of his neck.
Following a discussion of potential complications, Inman elected to proceed with
surgical intervention—"a lumbar discectomy at L5-S1 on the left and probably L4-
5." Dr. Edwards noted "reservations due to grossly deconditioned status and
psychological component."

In September 2021, Inman's counsel deposed Dr. Edwards. At the conclusion of
his direct examination, over opposing counsel's objections—and without being
shown the medical reports from December 2020 and March 2021 or the 2020
medical questionnaire Inman completed during his hiring process—Dr. Edwards
confirmed causation as to the low back.

On cross-examination, counsel for GE showed Dr. Edwards the March 29, 2021
report in which Inman noted his pain had been ongoing for "several months." Dr.
Edwards agreed that this report was inconsistent with an injury on March 19, 2021.
He then noted Inman's April 1, 2021 report to PA Huiet that his December 23,
2020 "back spasms" had resolved "100 percent [ ] within a few days" was
inconsistent with the December 26, 2020 record from the visit at which Inman
reported a 10/10 pain level down his left leg. Dr. Edwards testified that this would
not be considered a back spasm and admitted Inman's problems in June 2021 were
identical to his presentation to the emergency room in December 2020. Dr.
Edwards further acknowledged that it would have been important for him to have
this undisclosed information before reaching a causation opinion. He then
addressed the medical questionnaire Inman completed just two days before his
December 26, 2020 ER visit. After reviewing the previously undisclosed items,
Dr. Edwards opined that "based on the records," Inman had not "accurately
completed" the questionnaire and agreed that he could not provide a causation
opinion.

Counsel for Inman attempted to re-depose Dr. Edwards as to causation in August
2022. However, two different commissioners—in separate orders—expressly
prohibited Inman from taking a second deposition. Despite these orders, counsel
for Inman met alone with Dr. Edwards to discuss causation. Six days after this
meeting, Dr. Edwards provided an opinion letter stating Inman's L5/Sl and L4-5
disc herniation and need for surgery, as well as a C5-6 disc protrusion, were
causally related to Inman's "industrial injury."

After unsuccessful motions to exclude Dr. Edwards' letter, GE re-deposed Dr.
Edwards. During this second deposition, Dr. Edwards confirmed that neither his
prior deposition testimony nor most of the evidence referenced by GE's counsel in
that deposition had been provided to him during his October 2022 meeting with
Inman's counsel. However, Dr. Edwards noted Inman's counsel did show him the
December 2020 GE medical questionnaire that Inman completed during the hiring
process.

GE's counsel also went through the referenced testimony from the initial
deposition, and Dr. Edwards confirmed his prior opinions. Yet, Dr. Edwards
agreed that Inman's spine pathology from December 2020 "is exactly the same
pathology" as that which caused the pain for which Inman later saw him.

Dr. Edwards further testified that Inman sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing
lumbar spine condition but noted the documents provided by GE's counsel during
his first deposition "filled in a lot of information" that he did not have regarding
"the preexisting nature of some of [Inman's] back and leg symptoms." GE's
counsel also established:

Q: The length of time that he had this issue is all different
according to these reports; is that fair?

A: It is.

Q: How do we know this isn't just a continuation of his
ongoing issues?

A: We really don't except for again, the patient tells me
something and I have to rely on that. And—

Q: But can you rely on the patient based on what I've
shown you today?

A: It makes it more challenging to do that.

Dr. Edwards agreed that Inman "was not forthcoming" about his medical history
and ultimately stated, "I don't think that the symptoms that you've had me review
in these records that predated the injury were anything other than the same thing
I've been treating him for."

The single commissioner denied compensation, and the parties sought review
before the Appellate Panel. The Appellate Panel affirmed the order of the single
commissioner denying compensation.
Law and Analysis

Inman argues the single commissioner and Appellate Panel erred in failing to find
he sustained a compensable injury by accident to his back which aggravated his
pre-existing back condition. We disagree.

"The Appellate Panel is the ultimate fact finder in workers' compensation cases,
and if its findings are supported by substantial evidence, it is not within our
province to reverse those findings." Mungo v. Rental Unif. Serv. of Florence, Inc.,
383 S.C. 270, 279, 678 S.E.2d 825, 829-30 (Ct. App. 2009). "An injured employee
'who has a permanent physical impairment or preexisting condition' may receive
benefits for a subsequent work-related disability if he establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that 'the subsequent injury aggravated the
preexisting condition or permanent physical impairment.'" Burnette v. City of
Greenville, 401 S.C. 417, 427, 737 S.E.2d 200, 205–06 (Ct. App. 2012) (quoting
S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-35 (Supp. 2011)). "In a case brought under section 42-9-35
[of the South Carolina Code], the burden is on the claimant to produce medical
evidence to establish a claim for the exacerbation of a preexisting condition."
Rummage v. BGF Indus., 434 S.C. 441, 458, 865 S.E.2d 380, 389 (Ct. App. 2021)
(citing § 42-9-35(A) ("The employee shall establish by a preponderance of the
evidence, including medical evidence, that: (1) the subsequent injury aggravated
the preexisting condition or permanent physical impairment . . . .")). "As used in
this section, 'medical evidence' means expert opinion or testimony stated to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, documents, records, or other material that
is offered by a licensed health care provider." S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-35(C)
(2025).

Inman argues Dr. Edwards' letter and the testimony in his second deposition
established that Inman's injuries were the result of an aggravation of his pre-
existing condition by a work accident. He further asserts GE failed to offer
contradictory evidence; thus, in his view, Dr. Edwards's testimony carries the day
as to compensability. We disagree.

GE challenges the causation opinion upon which Inman relies because it was not
requested of Dr. Edwards in his initial deposition and arose only after a private
meeting with Inman's counsel. GE further asserts—and we agree—that this
belated causation testimony came about solely due to the second deposition GE
was effectively forced to take to discredit the dubious causation letter.
The single commissioner's findings that Inman did not meet his burden of proof as
to either a compensable workplace injury or the aggravation of a pre-existing
condition are supported by substantial evidence and were properly affirmed by the
Appellate Panel. Dr. Edwards admitted that Inman has been treated for the same
symptoms, rather than the aggravation of a pre-existing condition, since he first
presented to McLeod for back pain in December 2020.

Because substantial evidence supports the Appellate Panel's decision that Inman's
injury is not compensable, we decline to address the parties' remaining issues. See
Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not review remaining issues when
its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).1

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Appellate Panel is

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

1
We likewise decline to further address GE's cross-appeal. See id.