Whigham v. Jackson Dawson Communications

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

Stephen C. Whigham, Employee, Appellant,

v.

Jackson Dawson Communications, Employer, and The Hartford, Carrier, Respondents.

Appeal From the Appellate Panel

South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-223

Heard March 20, 2012-Filed April 11, 2012 

AFFIRMED

Douglas A. Churdar, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Benjamin M. Renfrow, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this workers' compensation case, Stephen
C. Whigham argues the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the
Commission) erred in finding Whigham failed to satisfy the burden of proving
the occurrence of a compensable accident.  We find no error of law in the
Commission's decision to deny Whigham's claim and we find the decision to be
supported by substantial evidence of record; therefore, we affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(5)(d), (e) (Supp. 2011) (providingthis court may not substitute its judgment for that of the
Commission as to the weight of the evidence, but may reverse when the decision
is affected by an error of law or clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record); Hill v. Eagle
Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436, 645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007) ("Substantial
evidence is that evidence which, in considering the record as a whole, would
allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the Commission reached."); Sharpe
v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999) ("The
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not
prevent the Commission's finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.");Leopard
v. Blackman-Uhler, 318
S.C. 369, 371, 458 S.E.2d 41, 42 (1995) (finding an injury sustained while
participating in a company sponsored softball game did not arise out of and in
the course of employment); Smith v.
Union Bleachery/Cone Mills, 276 S.C.
454, 458, 280 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1981) (finding injury sustained while
participating on company sponsored softball team not compensable); Grice v.
Nat'l Cash Register Co., 250 S.C. 1, 5, 156 S.E.2d 321, 323 (1967) (finding
death from automobile accident while returning from company picnic was not
compensable because picnic was mere recreational activity); Pate v. Plymouth
Mfg. Co., 198 S.C. 159, 164-66, 17 S.E.2d 146, 148-49 (1941) (finding
injury sustained while returning from company baseball team's game not
compensable because game was merely a recreational activity); 2 Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers'
Compensation Law § 22.01 (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed. 2011) (outlining test
for determining when recreational or social activities are within the course of
employment).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.