Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-223 - Whigham v. Jackson Dawson Communications

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


Stephen C. Whigham, Employee, Appellant,

v.

Jackson Dawson Communications, Employer, and The Hartford, Carrier, Respondents.


Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-223
Heard March 20, 2012-Filed April 11, 2012 


AFFIRMED


Douglas A. Churdar, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Benjamin M. Renfrow, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  In this workers' compensation case, Stephen C. Whigham argues the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) erred in finding Whigham failed to satisfy the burden of proving the occurrence of a compensable accident.  We find no error of law in the Commission's decision to deny Whigham's claim and we find the decision to be supported by substantial evidence of record; therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(d), (e) (Supp. 2011) (providingthis court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission as to the weight of the evidence, but may reverse when the decision is affected by an error of law or clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record); Hill v. Eagle Motor Lines, 373 S.C. 422, 436, 645 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2007) ("Substantial evidence is that evidence which, in considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the Commission reached."); Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 160, 519 S.E.2d 102, 105 (1999) ("The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the Commission's finding from being supported by substantial evidence.");Leopard v. Blackman-Uhler, 318 S.C. 369, 371, 458 S.E.2d 41, 42 (1995) (finding an injury sustained while participating in a company sponsored softball game did not arise out of and in the course of employment); Smith v. Union Bleachery/Cone Mills, 276 S.C. 454, 458, 280 S.E.2d 52, 54 (1981) (finding injury sustained while participating on company sponsored softball team not compensable); Grice v. Nat'l Cash Register Co., 250 S.C. 1, 5, 156 S.E.2d 321, 323 (1967) (finding death from automobile accident while returning from company picnic was not compensable because picnic was mere recreational activity); Pate v. Plymouth Mfg. Co., 198 S.C. 159, 164-66, 17 S.E.2d 146, 148-49 (1941) (finding injury sustained while returning from company baseball team's game not compensable because game was merely a recreational activity); 2 Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 22.01 (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed. 2011) (outlining test for determining when recreational or social activities are within the course of employment).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.