Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-290 - Williams v. SC Department of Corrections

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

Ora Williams,  Claimant, Appellant,

v.

SC Department of Corrections, Employer, and State Accident Fund, as Carrier, Respondents.


Appeal From Richland County
 Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-290
Submitted June 1, 2008 – Filed June 4, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Preston F. McDaniel and W. Ralph Garris, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Cynthia Burns Polk and Matthew C. Robertson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ora Williams appeals the circuit court's decision affirming the Appellate Panel of the Workers' Compensation Commission.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Brunson v. Am. Koyo Bearings, 367 S.C. 161, 623 S.E.2d 870, (Ct. App. 2005) (holding a single commissioner's findings of fact and law, if not appealed from, become the law of the case); Reese v. CCI Const. Co., 334 S.C. 600, 604, 514 S.E.2d 144, 145 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[F]ailure to challenge ruling is abandonment of issue and precludes consideration on appeal; unchallenged ruling, right or wrong, is the law of the case and requires affirmance." (citation omitted)); Anderson v. S.C. Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 322 S.C. 417, 420 n.1, 472 S.E.2d 253, 255 n.1 (1996) ("[An] order would be affirmed under the ‘two issue' rule if the plaintiff failed to appeal both grounds or if one of the grounds required affirmance."); Dropkin v. Beachwalk Villas Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 373 S.C. 360, 365, 644 S.E.2d 808, 811 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Under a second application of the ‘two issue' rule, the appellate court will find it unnecessary to address all the grounds appealed where one requires affirmance.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., and SHORT, J., and KONDUROS, J., concur.


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