Springs Industries v. SC Second Injury Fund

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

Springs
Industries, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Second Injury Fund, Appellant.

In Re:

George Baker,
Employee, Claimant,

v.

Springs
Industries, Employer and Self-Insured Carrier, Respondent.

Appeal From York County

Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-189

Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 5,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Bradley
H. Smith, of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Latonya
Dilligard Edwards, of Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  Springs Industries, Inc., (Employer)
sought reimbursement from the South Carolina Second Injury Fund for monies
Employer paid to employee George Baker for a back injury that followed a right
hip injury.  Employer now appeals from the order of the circuit court affirming
the Appellate Panel's denial of reimbursement.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  As
to whether the circuit court erred in finding the agreement for reimbursement
of monies paid for Baker's hip injury was unambiguous and did not cover future
injuries to body parts not expressly named in the agreement:  Baxter v.
Martin Bros., Inc., 368 S.C. 510, 513, 630 S.E.2d 42, 43 (2006) (limiting
reviewing court's scrutiny to whether Appellate Panel's findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence and whether its decision is affected by an
error of law); Silver v. Aabstract Pools & Spas, Inc., 376 S.C. 585,
591, 658 S.E.2d 539, 542 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding whether the language of a
contract is ambiguous is a question of law to be determined by the court by
examining the entire contract and not merely whether certain phrases taken in
isolation could be interpreted in more than one way, requiring the intent of
the parties to be gleaned from the clear and unequivocal language of the
contract, and prohibiting courts from inserting words into a contract
expressing an intent wholly omitted by the parties upon execution thereof). 

2.  As
to whether the circuit court erred in declining to construe the agreement to
provide for reimbursement for future injuries that are the natural consequence
of Baker's hip injury, our above holding renders this issue moot:  Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 715 (1973)
(holding an issue is moot when a judgment rendered by the court will have no
practical legal effect upon an existing controversy and declining to address
moot or academic questions). 

AFFIRMED.

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

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