THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Newby Frank Lee, Employee,        Respondent,

v.

H. R. Allen, Employer, and the Continental Casualty Company, Carrier,        Appellants.

Appeal From Newberry County
James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-356
Submitted March 26, 2003 - Filed May 21, 2003

AFFIRMED

James P. Newman, Jr., Esquire Andrew E. Haselden, of Columbia; for Appellants

John F. Hardaway, of Columbia; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� H.R. Allen, Employer, and the Continental Casualty Company, Carrier (collectively, Employer) appeal the order of the circuit court affirming the South Carolina Workers� Compensation Commission�s award of temporary total disability benefits to Newby Frank Lee.� We affirm.�

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lee began working with Employer as an electrician�s helper in June of 1998.� His job involved climbing ladders to install pipe and fixtures.� Lee testified that when he began having to climb ladders for the job, he experienced some soreness like a pulled muscle.� Then, around May 12, 1999, he was climbing a ladder while holding a fixture when he felt a �pop� in his hip.� He asked another worker, Roy Johnson, to finish installing the fixtures.� When Moe Zandi, the foreman on the job, asked him why Johnson was doing his job, Lee told him about his injury.� On the way home that evening, Lee was unable to get out at the store.� He asked Henry Hickson, with whom he was riding, to get him a drink and a couple of packs of cigarettes.�

Lee tried to treat the pain with Advil, rubs, and hot showers.� At the beginning of June, he went to his family doctor, Michael J. Bernardo, who placed him on limited duties at work for a week.� He was later referred to Dr. Phillip Milner, with Orthopedic Associates.� Dr. Milner diagnosed Lee as having osteoarthritis of the right hip.� Dr. Milner opined, �The question does arise whether his particular work was responsible for his osteoarthritis, but without a history of trauma, I doubt if the work had a significant play in his degeneration.� I believe the heavy work simply aggravated his arthritic hip to the point where it was symptomatic.��

In September of 1999, Lee filed a Form 50 seeking workers� compensation benefits.� The Single Commissioner held Lee failed to prove a compensable work related injury and denied his claim.� The Full Commission, however, reversed the decision of the Single Commissioner and awarded Lee temporary total benefits.� The circuit court affirmed the order of the Full Commission, finding its decision was supported by substantial evidence.� This appeal followed.�

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review for decisions by the South Carolina Workers� Compensation Commission.� Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981).� This court can reverse or modify the Full Commission�s decision only if the appellant�s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the decision is affected by an error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record.� Shealy v. Aiken County, 341 S.C. 448, 535 S.E.2d 438 (2000); S.C. Code Ann. � 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2002).� �Substantial evidence is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence viewed from one side, but such evidence, when the whole record is considered, as would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the Full Commission reached.�� Shealy, 341 S.C. at 455, 535 S.E.2d at 442.� It is not the task of the appellate court to weigh the evidence as found by the Full Commission.� Id.

DISCUSSION

The Employer argues the circuit court erred in affirming the decision of the Full Commission finding Lee had suffered a compensable injury.� We disagree.�

The Employer relies on the case of Sharpe v. Case Produce, 336 S.C. 154, 519 S.E.2d 102 (1999).� We find its reliance misplaced.� In Sharpe, the Single Commissioner found the claimant had not sustained an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.� The Full Commission and the circuit court affirmed.� In affirming, the supreme court held, �Whether there is any causal connection between employment and an injury is a question of fact for the Commission.� Sharpe, 336 S.C. at 159, 519 S.E.2d at 105.� The court further elucidated, �[I]n deciding whether substantial evidence supports a finding of causation, it is appropriate to consider both the lay and expert evidence.� Moreover, in compensation proceedings, where uncontroverted medical opinions are merely deductions drawn from certain symptoms, the final conclusion remains with the triers of fact.�� Id. at 161, 519 S.E.2d at 106.�

In the present case, the Full Commission held Lee �had sustained a compensable work related injury to his back, when he felt a pop in his leg as he was climbing a ladder.� [Lee] had a pre-existing condition of osteoarthritis which was aggravated by this on the job injury.� [1] � This finding is supported by both lay and expert evidence.�

Lee testified about how he had experienced some soreness and then felt a �pop� in his leg as he climbed a ladder while holding a fixture.� He stated that he had not experienced pain in his hip or leg before he began working for the Employer.� Henry Hickson, who gave Lee rides to and from work confirmed that before the day of the accident, Lee had a slight limp but had been able to move freely.� However, on that day, he said he could not get out of the car.� Dr. Milner opined, �I believe the heavy work simply aggravated his arthritic hip to the point where it was symptomatic.�� Accordingly, we find the Full Commission�s determination that Lee had suffered a compensable injury that had aggravated a pre-existing condition is supported by substantial evidence.�

The Employer asserts the testimony of Moe Zandi, the foreman of the construction site, supports the Single Commissioner�s conclusion that Lee had not suffered a compensable accident.� Zandi testified that Lee complained about his hips hurting when they were working on the slab phase of the construction.� In addition, he stated that according to his records, Roy Johnson, whom Lee claimed finished installing fixtures after he experienced the popping in his hip, did not work on May 12, 1999, the dated Lee claimed the incident occurred.� Zandi, however, confirmed that Johnson had worked on May 11 and May 13, 1999.� Hickson testified that Lee was working with Johnson on the day that Lee was not able to get out of the car.�

The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions does not prevent the Full Commission�s conclusions from being supported by substantial evidence.� Tiller v. Nat�l Health Care Ctr., 334 S.C. 333, 513 S.E.2d 843 (1999).� Furthermore,

The Full Commission is the ultimate fact finder in Workers� Compensation cases and is not bound by the Single Commissioner�s findings of fact.� Although it is logical for the Full Commission, which did not have the benefit of observing the witnesses, to give weight to the Single Commissioner�s opinion, the Full Commission is empowered to make its own findings of fact and to reach its own conclusions of law consistent or inconsistent with those of the Single Commissioner.� The final determination of witness credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence is reserved to the Full Commission.� Where there are conflicts in the evidence over a factual issue, the findings of the Commission are conclusive.�

Etheredge v. Monsanto Co., 349 S.C. 451, 454-55, 562 S.E.2d 679, 681(Ct. App. 2002) (citations omitted).

As stated above, the Full Commission�s determination that Lee suffered a compensable injury is supported by substantial evidence.� Accordingly, the order of the circuit court affirming the award of temporary total benefits to Lee is

AFFIRMED.�

CURETON, ANDERSON, and HUFF, JJ., concur.�