Sparks v. Palmetto Hardwood

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

Clifton Sparks, Appellant,

v.

Palmetto
Hardwood, Inc., and Palmetto Timber S.I. Fund c/o Walker, Hunter &
Associates, Respondents.

Appeal From Florence County

Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-525

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 13, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Edward L. Graham, of Florence, for
Appellant.

Weston Adams, III, Helen F. Hiser, and M.
McMullen Taylor; all of Columbia, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  This workers' compensation appeal arises
out of Appellant Clifton Sparks' injuries to his head and other body parts.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  As to Issue 1,
we find only the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Commission (the
Commission) that Sparks is totally and permanently disabled pursuant to section
42-9-30 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2000) is the law of the case.  See ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, LP v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241,
489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (noting an unappealed ruling is the law of the
case); as to the remaining issues on appeal, we find substantial evidence in
the record to support the Commission's decision.  See S.C. Code Ann. §
42-9-10 (Supp. 2000) ("[A]ny person determined to be totally and
permanently disabled who as a result of a compensable injury . . . has suffered
physical brain damage . . . shall receive the benefits for life."); Jordan
v. Kelly Co., 381 S.C. 483, 486, 674 S.E.2d 166, 169 (2009) (finding that the
final determination of witness credibility and resolution of conflicts in the
evidence are reserved solely to the Commission); Therrell v. Jerry's Inc.,
370 S.C. 22, 30, 633 S.E.2d 893, 897 (2006) ("[T]he burden is on the
claimant to prove that an injury is compensable within the act."); Lark
v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 136, 276 S.E.2d 304, 307 (1981) (holding that
an appellate court will not overturn a finding by an administrative agency
unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence).

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, PIEPER, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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