Birch v. Mail Contractors of America

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

Donald W. Birch, Appellant,

v.

Mail
Contractors of America and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty, Respondents.

Appeal From Union County

 John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-046

Submitted January 2, 2008 – Filed January
14, 2008

AFFIRMED

G. William Thomason, of Greenwood, for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. Jones, and Jason A. Griggs, both of Greenville, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM: 
Donald Birch appeals the circuit court’s order affirming the South Carolina
Workers’ Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel).  Birch contends the circuit
court erred in finding substantial evidence existed for the Appellate Panel to
hold Birch did not sustain physical and permanent brain damage.  Birch also
maintains the Panel erred in reversing the single commissioner’s finding of
brain damage.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following
authorities:  Corbin v. Kohler Co., 351 S.C. 613, 617, 571 S.E.2d 92, 95 (Ct. App. 2002) (“In an appeal from the Appellate Panel, neither this court nor the circuit
court may substitute its judgment for that of the Appellate Panel as to the
weight of the evidence on questions of fact, but it may reverse when the
decision is affected by an error of law.”); Lockridge v. Santens of
Am., Inc., 344 S.C. 511, 515, 544
S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2001) (“Any review of the [Appellate Panel’s] factual
findings is governed by the substantial evidence standard . . . Substantial
evidence is evidence that, in viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable
minds to reach the same conclusion that the [Appellate Panel] reached.”); Rodney
v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515,
517, 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996) (“Arguments not raised to the workers’
compensation commission or to the circuit court are not preserved for appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.[1]  

HEARN, C.J., and KITTREDGE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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