Opinion ID: 2509407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Petitioner began working for respondent National Service Industries (National), a linen company, at its Charleston laundering facility in August 1984. According to petitioner, the work environment at the facility was very hot and sticky with a lot of lint and dust in the air, and was poorly ventilated. Petitioner was exposed to the fumes of bleach and did not wear a protective mask. In 1992, petitioner began experiencing breathing and sinus problems. Petitioner never experienced breathing or sinus problems prior to working for National. Petitioner's breathing was good when she was away from work. In 1993, National transferred petitioner to its Atlanta facility where the working conditions were worse than in the Charleston facility. Petitioner ultimately left her employment with National because the working conditions were making her breathing problems worse. In 1995, petitioner visited Dr. Jefrey Lieberman, who diagnosed petitioner as suffering from sarcoidosis, a respiratory and pulmonary condition. Petitioner testified Dr. Lieberman told her he did not know what caused her sarcoidosis and that, in light of this statement, she took no further steps to determine the cause of her condition. In July 2005, petitioner visited Dr. Michael Spandorfer. Dr. Spandorfer stated in his report that it was unclear whether petitioner's work exposure at National caused her sarcoidosis, but that it was more likely that petitioner's exposure to the airborne particles and fumes worsened her condition, which had previously developed. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim alleging a compensable injury by accident to her lungs and respiratory system arising out of and in the scope of her employment with National on July 12, 2005, the date she alleges she first discovered her sarcoidosis was related to her employment. The single commissioner found petitioner sustained a compensable injury by accident to her lungs which was discovered on July 12, 2005. The full commission reversed the commissioner, finding petitioner's claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Specifically, the full commission found petitioner was aware of her working conditions and, with some diligence on her part, could have discovered she had a claim more than two years before her filing date. Petitioner appealed. The circuit court and Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, affirmed the full commission's determination that petitioner failed to file her claim within the statute of limitations.