Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nicholson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided September 4, 2013No. Appellate Case No. 2012-206507; No. 5171Published

1DissentFew, C.J.

The events that led to Nicholson’s fall are undisputed. However, the factual inferences to be drawn from those events are disputed. The commission’s ruling that Nicholson sustained compensable injuries is based on the factual finding that Nicholson’s fall arose out of her employment, which in turn is based on factual inferences the commission drew from the events of Nicholson’s fall.

I would affirm the commission because there is substantial evidence in the record to support its findings. See Ervin v. Richland Mem’l Hosp., 386 S.C. 245, 248, 687 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Ct.App.2009) (stating “this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shealy v. Aiken CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Douglas v. Spartan Mills, Startex DivisionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1965
  3. Grant v. Grant TextilesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
  4. Ervin v. Richland Memorial HospitalCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API