 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lollis v. S&S Construction Co.5/26/2005
Submitted May 1, 2005
AFFIRMED
Billy Jack Lollis and Ashley E. Lollis, as personal representatives of the Estate of Billy E. Lollis, Jr., appeal the circuit court's order affirming the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission (Full Commission). Appellants argue the circuit court erred in finding Billy E. Lollis, Jr. was barred, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-60 (1985), from receiving workers' compensation benefits because voluntary intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident.
After a thorough review of the record, the decision of the circuit court, and the briefs of the parties, we find the circuit court properly concluded there was substantial evidence to support the Full Commission's finding that intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident. The circuit court's order is hereby affirmed and reprinted as part of the opinion of this Court.
THE ORDER OF JUDGE ALEXANDER S. MACAULAY
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter came before me on an appeal from the Full Commission of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. The claimant filed a form 50 on November 14, 2000, alleging an injury by accident, resulting in severe head trauma. The employer /carrier answered, admitting that the claimant was an employee and in the scope of his employment at the time of his injury, but interposing an affirmative defense of voluntary intoxication as a bar to recovery. (See S.C. Code Ann. §42-9-60, 1985, as amended). The employer/carrier contended that the claimant was so intoxicated and impaired on the day in question that he was incapable of operating a bulldozer safely, and as a direct and proximate result of this intoxication, drove the bulldozer too close to the edge of a pit, causing the equipment to slide down into the pit and unfortunately injuring the claimant.
Commissioner Catoe heard the case and issued his Decision and Order on February 8, 2002, finding that the employer /carrier failed to meet their burden of proof that intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident. The Full Commission reversed the Single Commissioner by Order dated August 26, 2002, finding that the claimant's level of intoxication and impairment was so great that he was incapable of operating a bulldozer safely and that the accident was a direct and proximate result of his intoxication.
By Notice of Appeal dated September 10, 2002, the claimant timely appealed to this Court as authorized by South Carolina law. At the hearing before this Court on August 28, 2003, the claimant's intoxication was conceded, and argument was focused on the issue of proximate cause.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court is not permitted to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the Full Commission. S.C. Code Ann. §1-23-380(g), 1976, as amended; rather it is constrained to determine if the decision below is controlled by an error of law or if it is wholly unsupported by any evidence. Hoxit v. Michelin Tire Corp., 304 S.C. 461, 405 S.E.2d 407 (1991), O'Banner v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 319 S.C. 24, 459 S.E. 2d 324 (Ct. App. 1995). The Commission's decision must be affirmed if the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc., 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E. 2d 102 (1999). The final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Commission. Where there is conflict in the evidence, the Commission's findings of fact are conclusive. Id.
The claimant was in an accident when the bulldozer he was driving slid down into a pit n the morning in question. The claimant was t
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|