SIMS v. EDWIN PATE VINYL SIDING, 2016-UP-469. (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Number: inscco20161109868
Visitors: 2
Filed: Nov. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2016
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. 42-1-360(2) (2015) (stating an employer is subject to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act only if it employs four or more employees in the same business within the state); Edens v. Bellini, 359 S.C. 433 , 440, 597 S.E.2d 863 , 86
Summary: THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC. PER CURIAM . Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. 42-1-360(2) (2015) (stating an employer is subject to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act only if it employs four or more employees in the same business within the state); Edens v. Bellini, 359 S.C. 433 , 440, 597 S.E.2d 863 , 867..
More
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCARC.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-1-360(2) (2015) (stating an employer is subject to the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Act only if it employs four or more employees in the same business within the state); Edens v. Bellini, 359 S.C. 433, 440, 597 S.E.2d 863, 867 (Ct. App. 2004) ("Where [an] issue involves jurisdiction, the appellate court can take its own view of the preponderance of the evidence."); id. ("As a result, this [c]ourt has the power and duty to review the entire record and decide the jurisdictional facts in accord with the preponderance of the evidence."); Hernandez-Zuniga v. Tickle, 374 S.C. 235, 244, 647 S.E.2d 691, 696 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The appellant bears the burden of showing that the [Appellate Panel]'s decision is against the preponderance of evidence."); Harding v. Plumley, 329 S.C. 580, 587, 496 S.E.2d 29, 33 (Ct. App. 1998) ("While the company may have on occasion employed some additional laborers and statutory employees, the record does not support a conclusion that it employed the `same number of persons throughout the period with some constancy.'" (quoting Patterson v. L.M. Parker & Co., 162 S.E.2d 571, 575 (N.C. 1968))).
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
FootNotes
1. We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Source: Leagle
