Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-018 - Powell v. Fun Tees
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE

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

Rose Marie Powell, Claimant/Employee, Appellant,

v.

Fun Tees, Employer, and Royal & SunAlliance, Carrier, Respondents.


Appeal from Georgetown County
B. Hicks Harwell, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-018
Submitted January 1, 2006 – Filed January 11, 2006   


AFFIRMED


Thomas W. Greene, of Charleston, for Appellant.

R. Mark Davis, of Charleston, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this workers’ compensation action, the single commissioner ordered Fun Tees to pay benefits to Rose Marie Powell for a work-related injury occurring on August 31, 2000.  An appellate panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission (the Commission) reversed the single commissioner’s order.  The circuit court affirmed.  Powell appeals.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981) (holding that an appellate court’s review of appeals from the Commission is limited to deciding whether the Commission’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence or is controlled by some error of law);  Clark v. Aiken County Gov’t, 366 S.C. 102, 107, 620 S.E.2d 99, 101
(Ct. App. 2005) (noting a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact; instead, review of issues of fact is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record).

AFFIRMED.

STILWELL, KITTREDGE and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.