Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Nicholson v. S.C. Department of Social Services

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 14, 2015No. Appellate Case 2014-000329; 27478Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Pleicones

I concur in the decision to reverse the Court of Appeals because, in my opinion, the Commission’s finding that petitioner suffered a compensable injury when her foot caught on the carpet was supported by substantial evidence and therefore should have been upheld. Whigham v. Jackson Dawson Commc’ns, 410 S.C. 131, 763 S.E.2d 420 (2014). I write separately because I disagree with much of the majority’s exposition of law.

The majority commits two errors, in my opinion. First, it misapplies the “arising out of’ requirement for compensability *391by equating it to the “in the course of’ requirement. See…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bagwell v. Ernest Burwell, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  2. Owings v. Anderson County Sheriff's DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  3. Whigham v. Jackson Dawson CommunicationsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API