Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2011-198987 Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-461
07-25-2012
Kimball Robinette, Appellant, v. Capita Employer Resources and Key Risk, Respondents.
David Vance Benson and Garrett B. Johnson, of Elrod Pope Law Firm, of Rock Hill, for Appellant. David A. Wilson and Michael A. Farry, of Horton, Drawdy, Ward, Mullinax & Farry, PA, of Greenville, for Respondents.
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.
Appeal From the Appellate Panel
South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission
AFFIRMED
David Vance Benson and Garrett B. Johnson, of Elrod Pope Law Firm, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
David A. Wilson and Michael A. Farry, of Horton, Drawdy, Ward, Mullinax & Farry, PA, of Greenville, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM : Kimball Robinette (Employee) appeals the order of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (the Appellate Panel) denying his claim for workers' compensation benefits based on its finding Employee's intoxication caused his injuries. On appeal, Employee argues the Appellate Panel improperly concluded Respondents established the defense of intoxication. Because we find substantial evidence exists to support the Appellate Panel's finding that Employee's intoxication caused his injuries, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Lockridge v. Santens of Am., Inc., 344 S.C. 511, 515, 544 S.E.2d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2001) ("The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for decisions by the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. Any review of the [Appellate Panel]'s factual findings is governed by the substantial evidence standard. . . . Substantial evidence is evidence that, in viewing the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the same conclusion that the [Appellate Panel] reached." (internal citations omitted)); Hall v. Desert Aire, Inc., 376 S.C. 338, 347, 656 S.E.2d 753, 757 (Ct. App. 2007) ("It is not within the reviewing court's province to reverse findings of the Appellate Panel which are supported by substantial evidence."); id. at 348, 656 S.E.2d at 758 ("The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the Appellate Panel]'s findings from being supported by substantial evidence."); id. ("Where there are conflicts in the evidence over a factual issue, the findings of the Appellate Panel are conclusive.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.