Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-326 - DeBoe v. BK 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

Rawley Edmund DeBoe, Respondent,

v.

BK Industries, Employer, and Indemnity Insurance Company of America, Carrier, Appellants.


Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-326
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012


AFFIRMED


Russell T. Infinger and Kirsten E. Small, both of Greenville, for Appellants.

Alan R. Cochran, of Greenville; and Ben C. Harrison and Jeremy A. Dantin, both of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: BK Industries (Employer) appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Appellate Panel) awarding Rawley Edmund DeBoe (Employee) temporary total disability benefits for a change in condition to his work-related injury.  On appeal, Employer argues the Appellate Panel erred in (1) finding Employee suffered from a change in condition to his work-related injury and (2) denying Employer's motion to keep the record open. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the Appellate Panel erred in finding Employee suffered from a change in condition to his work-related injury: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-17-90(A) (Supp. 2011) (providing a claimant's workers' compensation award may be modified by the Appellate Panel "on proof by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a change of condition caused by the original injury"); Clark v. Aiken Cnty. Gov't, 366 S.C. 102, 111, 620 S.E.2d 99, 103 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The determination of whether a claimant experiences a change of condition is a question for the fact finder. We must therefore affirm if substantial evidence supports the [Appellate Panel's] finding." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Robbins v. Walgreens & Broadspire Servs., Inc., 375 S.C. 259, 265, 652 S.E.2d 90, 93-94 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A change in condition occurs when the claimant experiences a change in physical condition as a result of her original injury, occurring after the first award.  Thus, the issue before the Appellate Panel is sharply restricted to the question of extent of improvement or worsening of the injury on which the original award was based." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the Appellate Panel erred in denying Employer's motion to keep the record open: S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 67–613(B) (Supp. 2011) (providing the Appellate Panel has the authority to postpone a scheduled hearing in a workers' compensation matter for "good cause," which includes such reasons as the need for additional discovery); Trotter v. Trane Coil Facility, 393 S.C. 637, 645, 714 S.E.2d 289, 293 (2011) ("The granting or refusal of a request for a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the [Appellate Panel], whose ruling will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.  For appellate purposes, an abuse of discretion occurs where the ruling is based on an error of law or, where the ruling is grounded upon factual findings, is without evidentiary support. . . .  Where a party is not prejudiced by the denial of a motion for a continuance, reversal is not required." (citations omitted)). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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