Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-083 - Dan Anderson v. C.D. Electric

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

Dana Anderson, Respondent,

v.

C.D. Electric and NorGuard Insurance Company, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-083
Submitted February 1, 2010 – Filed February 3, 2010  


AFFIRMED


Stephen J. Wukela, of Florence, for Appellant.

T. Jeff Goodwyn, Jr., of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  The South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) denied Dana Anderson's claim for disability benefits.  The circuit court affirmed, and Anderson appeals, arguing the Appellate Panel erred by: (1) failing to consider the testimony or provide sufficient findings of fact regarding three of his witnesses; and (2) finding he did not suffer an injury by accident.  We affirm.[1] 

1. The Appellate Panel properly considered the testimony of Anderson's witnesses and issued sufficient findings of fact in its order.  The Appellate Panel stated in its order that it considered all testimony and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.  As the ultimate finder of fact, the Appellate Panel had discretion to determine the credibility and weight of all testimonial evidence and properly issued adequate, although brief, findings of fact supporting its conclusion that Anderson did not sustain an injury in the course of his employment.  See Bartley v. Allendale County Sch. Dist., 381 S.C. 262, 271, 672 S.E.2d 809, 813 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding the Appellate Panel is the ultimate finder of fact and makes the final determination of witness credibility and weight of the evidence); Brayboy v. Clark Heating Co., Inc., 306 S.C. 56, 58-59, 409 S.E.2d 767, 768 (1991) ("The findings of fact of an administrative body must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been properly applied to those findings.").     

2. Substantial evidence in the record supports the Appellate Panel's ruling that Anderson did not suffer an injury by accident.  The single commissioner and the Appellate Panel found Anderson was not a credible witness.  Additionally, no other witnesses directly observed Anderson injuring his leg while at work.  See Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436, 645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007) (holding the decisions of the Appellate Panel must be affirmed if the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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