 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STEPHENSON v. RICE SERVICES3/21/1994
nce is not a mere scintilla of evidence but evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion the agency reached.")
Stephenson argues that since he was able to return to work and perform his job , he could not have been 100% permanently and totally disabled at the time of his accident. Therefore, he contends, there is insubstantial evidence
According to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act (Act), "disability" is the incapacity because of injury , to earn, in the same or some other employment, the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury. S.C.Code Ann. ยง 42-1-120 (Law.Co-op. 1985). "Total disability" does not require absolute helplessness or entire physical disability; instead, it is an inability to perform services other than those that are so limited in quality, dependability or quantity that no reasonable stable market exists for them. McCollum v. Singer Co., 300 S.C. 103, 386 S.E.2d 471 (Ct.App. 1989).
Furthermore, as stated in Outlaw v. Johnson Service Co., 254 S.C. 486, 176 S.E.2d 152 (1970), the loss of earning capacity alone is the criterion for compensation under the Act and medical opinion as to the extent of physical disability can have no probative value against actual earnings. The undisputed fact that Stephenson was able to resume gainful employment and satisfactorily performed his job negates the finding that on March 16, 1988 Stephenson had no earning capacity. The testimony of Stephenson's psychologist also provides evidence of Stephenson's earning capacity at the time of the accident. Although he had concluded before the injury that Stephenson was not a good candidate for placement, Dr. Vander Kolk testified that Stephenson was able to find a semi-competitive job that "met his particular needs and was in an environment where he could function."
We conclude on the record before us that there is no substantial evidence that Stephenson was 100% disabled at the time of the accident; both the Full Commission and the circuit court erred as a matter of law when they determined that Stephenson was 100% permanently and totally disabled when the accident occurred. We agree with the single commissioner
The evidence in this record does not indicate that Stephenson's position with Rice Services was so limited in quality, dependability, and quantity that no reasonable stable market existed for that employment. McCollum, supra. The record shows that Stephenson retained some earning capacity before his injury , and the accident and injury of March 16, 1988 aggravated his pre-existing PTSD rendering him totally and permanently disabled.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court affirming the Order of the Full Commission and remand to the Commission for reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
HOWELL, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|