Dan Anderson v. C.D. Electric

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

Dana Anderson, Respondent,

v.

C.D. Electric
and NorGuard Insurance Company, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-083

Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed
February 3, 2010  

AFFIRMED

Stephen J. Wukela, of Florence, for
Appellant.

T. Jeff Goodwyn, Jr., of Columbia, for
Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
(Appellate Panel) denied Dana Anderson's claim for disability benefits.  The
circuit court affirmed, and Anderson appeals, arguing the Appellate Panel erred
by: (1) failing to consider the testimony or provide sufficient findings of
fact regarding three of his witnesses; and (2) finding he did not suffer an
injury by accident.  We affirm.[1] 

1. The Appellate Panel
properly considered the testimony of Anderson's witnesses and issued sufficient
findings of fact in its order.  The Appellate Panel stated in its order that it
considered all testimony and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.  As
the ultimate finder of fact, the Appellate Panel had discretion to determine
the credibility and weight of all testimonial evidence and properly issued
adequate, although brief, findings of fact supporting its conclusion that Anderson
did not sustain an injury in the course of his employment.  See Bartley
v. Allendale County Sch. Dist., 381 S.C. 262, 271, 672 S.E.2d 809, 813 (Ct.
App. 2009) (holding the Appellate Panel is the ultimate finder of fact and
makes the final determination of witness credibility and weight of the
evidence); Brayboy v. Clark Heating Co., Inc., 306 S.C. 56, 58-59, 409
S.E.2d 767, 768 (1991) ("The findings of fact of an administrative body
must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether
the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been
properly applied to those findings.").     

2. Substantial evidence in
the record supports the Appellate Panel's ruling that Anderson did not suffer
an injury by accident.  The single commissioner and the Appellate Panel found
Anderson was not a credible witness.  Additionally, no other witnesses directly
observed Anderson injuring his leg while at work.  See Hill v. Eagle
Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436, 645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007) (holding the
decisions of the Appellate Panel must be affirmed if the factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence in the record).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS,
and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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