Osteen v. Greenville County School District
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1DissentHuff, Judge
I disagree with the majority that Osteen’s injury is compensable. The full commission heard the case on March 27, 1995 and found that Osteen’s injury did not arise in the course *441and scope of her employment. The commission affirmed the single commissioner’s calculation of Osteen’s average weekly wage and compensation rate. Additionally, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the commission finding there was substantial evidence to support the commission’s findings of fact and the conclusion that Osteen was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury.
In…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Douglas v. Spartan Mills, Startex DivisionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1965
- Eargle v. South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1944
- Mack v. Post ExchangeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- Beam v. State Workmen's Compensation FundSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973
- Jordan v. Dixie Chevrolet, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.