Hoxit v. Michelin Tire Corp.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Harwell, Justice:
Appellants, the beneficiaries of the deceased employee, Junior Troy Hoxit, instituted this action seeking workers’ compensation benefits. The single Commissioner denied appellants’ claim. The Full Commission and the Circuit Court affirmed. On appeal, appellants claim that the denial of benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
I. FACTS
Hoxit had been an employee of Michelin Tire Corporation for ten and a half years and was a senior supervisor at the time of his death. During the first nine years of his employment, Hoxit had worked a swing shift in which he…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
- Brown v. LA FRANCE IND., a DIV. OF RIEGEL TEX.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
- Hunter v. Patrick Construction Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
- Holcombe v. Dan River Mills/Woodside Div.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1985
3Cited by15 opinions
- Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999
- Etheredge v. Monsanto Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
- Sharpe v. Case Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1999
- Mullinax v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1995
- Lockridge v. Santens of America, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.