Murphy v. Bi-Lo

THIS OPINION
HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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

Betty J.
Murphy, Respondent,

v.

Bi-Lo, Inc. and
MAC Risk Management, Appellants.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-428

Heard September 14, 2011 – Filed September
26, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Michael W. Burkett and Sarah S. Alphin, both
of Columbia, for Appellants.

John C. Land, III and Ricci Land Welch, both
of Manning, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  This appeal arises out of an order of
the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) that was
affirmed by the circuit court.  Appellants Bi-Lo, Inc. and MAC Risk Management
claim the Commission erred in:  (1) granting Respondent Betty Murphy's motion
to amend her pleadings to allege a new date of accident; (2) selecting a date
of accident and theory of recovery not contained within Murphy's pleadings; (3)
finding Murphy sustained an injury by accident arising out of her employment; and
(4) finding Murphy totally disabled by combining her right leg injury with
preexisting impairments.  We affirm.

1.  As to Appellants'
arguments that the Commission erred by granting Murphy's motion to amend her
pleadings and by selecting a date of accident not contained in the pleadings,
we find these arguments are not preserved for appellate review based on the
record presented to this court on appeal.  See Rule 210(h), SCACR
("Except as provided by Rule 212 and Rule 208(b)(1)(C) and (2), the
appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in the Record on
Appeal."); Leggett v. Smith, 386 S.C. 63, 74 n.3, 686 S.E.2d 699,
705 n.3 (Ct. App. 2009) (noting the appellant bears the burden of providing the
court with an adequate record on appeal).  Even if these arguments are
preserved for review, we find no error of law.  See S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(5) (Supp. 2010) (providing the standard of review for appeals from the
Commission); Callahan v. Beaufort Cnty. Sch. Dist, 375 S.C. 92, 95, 651
S.E.2d 311, 313 (2007) (holding an appellate court may reverse where the
decision is affected by an error of law). 

2. As to Appellants'
arguments that the Commission erred by awarding Murphy benefits for her injury
and by combining her injury with preexisting impairments, we find the
Commission's order is supported by substantial evidence.  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."). 

AFFIRMED.

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