|
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
Christopher Kernaghan, Appellant,
v.
Safelite Glass Corporation, Employer, and Specialty Risk Services, Carrier, Respondents.
Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation
Commission
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-324
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30,2012
AFFIRMED
Daniel A. Hunnicutt, of Conway, for Appellant.
Garth H. White, of Charlotte, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Kernaghan (Employee) appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) denying him benefits. On appeal, Kernaghan argues the Appellate Panel erred in finding his rheumatoid arthritis was not causally related to his employment. Because medical evidence exists in the record to support the Appellate Panel's finding that Employee's rheumatoid arthritis was not causally related to his employment, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5)(e) (Supp. 2011) (providing the appellate court must affirm the decision of the Appellate Panel when the decision is supported by substantial evidence); S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-160(A) (Supp. 2011) (providing an injury is compensable when it arises out of and in the course of employment); McCuen v. BMW Mfg. Corp., 383 S.C. 19, 24, 677 S.E.2d 28, 31 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An injury arises out of employment if a causal relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances."); id. at 24-25, 677 S.E.2d at 31-32 ("The claimant has the burden of proving facts that will bring the injury within the workers' compensation law, and such award must not be based on surmise, conjecture or speculation." (quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.