 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SOLOMON v. W.B. EASTON3/16/1992
its disability rating of Solomon.
We first note this issue was not raised in Solomon's exceptions to the circuit court. The circuit court did not rule on the issue and Solomon did not move pursuant to Rule 59, SCRCP, to amend the order for failure to consider it. Bailey v. Covil Corp., 291 S.C. 417, 354 S.E. 92d) 35 (1987) (workers' compensation case). The issue is not preserved for appellate review. Additionally, awards and records of the Social Security Administration ordinarily cannot be relied upon to support or deny a workers' compensation claim. 2B Arthur Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, Section 79.71(b) (1989); Bingham v. Dyersburg Fabrics Co., Inc., 567 S.W.2d 169 (Tenn. 1978).
Solomon next argues the circuit court erred in affirming the order of the commission because the single commissioner closed the record without allowing him to testify, thus, denying him due process of law. This issue was not raised in Solomon's exceptions to the circuit court. It is not preserved for review. Bailey, 291 S.C. 417, 354 S.E.2d 35. Further, the record does not reveal the single commissioner closed the hearing without allowing Solomon to testify. Moreover, the commission is the factfinder in a workers' compensation case and has the authority to receive further evidence. S.C. Code Ann. Section 42-17-50 (1976). The record does not indicate Solomon attempted to present testimony to the commission.
Solomon also complains the commission failed to obtain the report of Dr. Murphy who treated him. Presumably, the report would have reflected on Solomon's disability. This issue was not raised in Solomon's exceptions to the circuit court and the court did not rule on it. It is not preserved for appellate review. Bailey, 291 S.C. 417, 354 S.E.2d 35. The record does contain what appear to be the handwritten notes of Dr. Murphy. If this constitutes Solomon's proffer of Dr. Murphy's report, we do not see how the report would have benefitted Solomon. Moreover, it was not the commission's responsibility to obtain Dr. Murphy's records. It was the duty of Solomon to support his appeal to the commission.
Finally, Solomon argues the circuit court committed error in holding only one of his three exceptions set forth a sufficient assignment of error. Solomon's first exception states the facts found by the commission were not supported by credible evidence. The second exception is the "decision of the commission failed to address all the exceptions and points of law brought before the commission." The third exception is "upon such further exception as will hereafter be served." No additional exceptions were served or filed prior to the hearing before the circuit court.
We agree with the circuit court that the second and third exceptions are so vague they do not adequately specify grounds for appeal. A petition for review of the commission's rulings pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act must direct the court's attention to the abuse allegedly committed below including a distinct and specific statement of the rulings of which the appellant complains. Pringle v. Builders Transport, 298 S.C. 494, 381 S.E.2d 731 (1989). The circuit court lacks jurisdiction of the appeal if the notice is insufficient. Id. Moreover, the policy of liberally allowing amendment of pleadings does not apply to amendment of a notice of appeal requested after the expiration of the thirty-day statutory period for filing the appeal. Id.
The order the circuit court is
Affirmed.
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.
|
|