SC Second Injury Fund v. Specialty Risk Services

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

South Carolina Second Injury Fund, Appellant,

v.

Specialty Risk Services, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-001892

Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-366
Heard June 2, 2015 – Filed July 22, 2015

AFFIRMED

Latonya Dilligard Edwards, of Dilligard Edwards, LLC,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Vernon F. Dunbar, of McAngus Goudelock & Courie,
LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Second Injury Fund (the Fund) appeals an
order of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the
Commission), awarding reimbursement to Specialty Risk Services. The Fund
argues the circuit court erred in affirming the Commission's finding (1) a change of
condition implicating reimbursement; and (2) the claimant's preexisting
hyperthyroidism and Raynaud's Syndrome were permanent and serious enough to
constitute a hindrance or obstacle to the claimant's employment.1 We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1: As to the Fund's argument regarding a change of condition: Section 42-9-
400(a) (2015) (providing "[i]f an employee who has a permanent physical
impairment from any cause or origin incurs a subsequent disability from" a
compensable injury, and meets the remainder of the statutory requirement, the
employer or carrier shall be reimbursed from the Fund); Dunton v. S.C. Bd. of
Exam'rs In Optometry, 291 S.C. 221, 223, 353 S.E.2d 132, 133 (1987) ("The
construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be
accorded the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent
compelling reasons.").

2. As to the Fund's argument regarding whether the claimant's preexisting
conditions were permanent and serious enough to constitute a hindrance or
obstacle to employment: Jordan v. Kelly Co., 381 S.C. 483, 486, 674 S.E.2d 166,
168 (2009) (holding, in workers' compensation cases, the Commission is the
ultimate finder of fact and the appellate court must affirm the findings of fact made
by the Commission if they are supported by substantial evidence); Hargrove v.
Titan Textile Co., 360 S.C. 276, 295, 599 S.E.2d 604, 614 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating
where there is a conflict in the evidence in a workers' compensation action, the
Commission's findings of fact may not be set aside).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, LOCKEMY, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
We combine the Fund's second and third issues on appeal.