Osment v. The Timken Company

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

James Osment, Appellant,

v.

The Timken Company and Phoenix Insurance Company,
Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000808

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-001
Heard December 7, 2016 – Filed January 4, 2017

AFFIRMED

John David Hawkins, Charles Logan Rollins, II, and
George Randall Taylor, all of The Hawkins Law Firm, of
Spartanburg, for Appellant.

J. South Lewis, II, of Willson Jones Carter & Baxley,
P.A., of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: James Osment appeals the South Carolina Workers'
Compensation Commission Appellate Panel order, arguing the Appellate Panel
erred in finding (1) he did not sustain a compensable injury to his back or right hip
as a result of his work-related right knee injury and (2) he sustained only 60%
permanent partial disability to his right knee as a result of his work-related injury.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Frame
v. Resort Servs. Inc., 357 S.C. 520, 527, 593 S.E.2d 491, 494 (Ct. App. 2004)
("The substantial evidence rule of the Administrative Procedures Act governs the
standard of review in a [w]orkers' [c]ompensation decision."); Liberty Mut. Ins.
Co. v. S.C. Second Injury Fund, 363 S.C. 612, 620, 611 S.E.2d 297, 300 (Ct. App.
2005) ("Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence, nor the evidence
viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the
record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the
administrative agency reached in order to justify its action."); Shealy v. Aiken Cty.,
341 S.C. 448, 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000) (holding the Appellate Panel is the
ultimate fact finder, and the final determination of witness credibility and the
weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Appellate Panel); Olson v. S.C.
Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 379 S.C. 57, 63, 663 S.E.2d 497, 501 (Ct. App.
2008) ("The mere possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the
evidence does not prevent a finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.").

AFFIRMED.

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.