Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-552 - Bartell v. Francis Marion University

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

Theron J. Bartell, Claimant, Appellant,

v.

Francis Marion University, Employer, and State Accident Fund, Carrier, Respondents.


Appeal From Florence County
 Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-552   
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 9, 2008


AFFIRMED


Theron J. Bartell, pro se, for Appellant.

Samuel T. Brunson, of Florence; and Cynthia B. Polk, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Theron J. Bartell sustained three shoulder injuries while employed by Francis Marion University. He sought and received workers’ compensation for these injuries.  Bartell now appeals the circuit court’s order affirming the Appellate Panel of the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s findings that Bartell has received full compensation for his injuries, arguing the Appellate Panel’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities. 

1.  As to the question whether the circuit court erred in finding substantial evidence supported the Appellate Panel’s finding Bartell had received all weekly benefit payments ordered by the single commissioner:  S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-260(E) (Supp. 2007) (“An employer may request a hearing at any time to address termination or reduction of temporary disability payments.”); Curiel v. Envtl. Management Servs. (MS), 376 S.C. 23, 29, 655 S.E.2d 482, 485 (2007) (providing reaching maximum medical improvement ends a disabled employee’s entitlement to temporary total disability payments). 

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in finding substantial evidence supported the appellate panel’s finding that Francis Marion University and the State Accident Fund were not liable to pay Dr. Joseph Healy’s outstanding bill:  State v. Hamilton, 333 S.C. 642, 651, 511 S.E.2d 94, 98 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding an issue not raised to and ruled upon by the circuit court is not preserved for appellate review); Rule 210(c), SCACR (“The Record shall not . . . include matter which was not presented to the lower court or tribunal.”); Rule 210(h), SCACR (limiting appellate review to facts appearing in the Record on Appeal).    

3.  As to whether the circuit court erred in declining to award interest on the unpaid permanent partial and disfigurement benefits:  Mathis v. S.C. State Highway Dep’t, 260 S.C. 344, 346, 195 S.E.2d 713, 714-15 (1973) (holding an issue is moot when a judgment rendered by the court will have no practical legal effect upon an existing controversy because an intervening event renders any grant of effectual relief impossible for the reviewing court, and a court will not decide moot or academic questions). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur. 


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