Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-364 - Holmes v. National Services Industries

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

Carolyn Holmes, Employee,  Appellant,

v.

National Services Industries, Employer, and New Hampshire Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Carrier, Respondents


Appeal From Charleston County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-364
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 25, 2009


AFFIRMED


Malcolm M. Crosland, Jr., of Charleston, for Appellant.

Weston Adams, III, of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  Carolyn Holmes appeals the circuit court's affirmance of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission's denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.  Regarding her statute of limitations argument:  S.C. Code § 42-15-40 (Supp. 2008) (providing a two-year statute of limitations for filing workers' compensation claims); Mauldin v. Dyna-Color/Jack Rabbit, 308 S.C. 18, 20, 416 S.E.2d 639, 640 (1992) ("Under the discovery rule, the statute would begin to run from the date [the claimant] either knew or should have known of her compensable injury."); Snell v. Columbia Gun Exchange, Inc., 276 S.C. 301, 303, 278 S.E.2d 333, 334 (1981) (holding reasonable diligence requires an injured party to act with promptness where circumstances of an injury would put a person of common knowledge and experience on notice that some claim may exist).

2.  Regarding compensability:  Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (holding when one issue is dispositive, the remaining issues need not be addressed).

AFFIRMED. [1]

HEARN, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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