Court Opinion

ID: 9849251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:37:04.632091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:09.816971
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Justice
(dissenting):
Hearing Commissioner Reid and a majority of the Full Commission1 found no compensable injury. The Circuit Court and this Court’s majority, however, have chosen to substitute their findings of fact for those of the Commission.
A reviewing court may reverse the Industrial Commission only if it is unsupported by substantial evidence. Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S. C. 130, 135, 276 S. E. (2d) 304, 306 (1981). The majority correctly cites this standard, but proceeds to substitute its own factual findings of those of the Full Commission. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, “the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of evidence on the questions of fact.” Lark, 276 S. C. at 132, 276 S. E. (2d) at 305, citing S. C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(g) (Cum. Supp. 1984).
Substantial evidence supported the Industrial Commission’s findings. There was evidence that respondent failed to report his injury as work-related, and indeed, at one point stated it was not work-related. Even after reporting the injury, he was unable to point to any specific accident. Respondent’s doctors diagnosed his injury as “degenerative” or developing over a period of time.
Although the majority may believe the facts should have been found differently by the Full Commission, acting on such a belief is without precedent under our established *437standard of review. By its opinion, the majority has, perhaps unwittingly, transformed this Court into the ultimate fact-finder.
Because the Full Commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, I would reverse the Circuit Court.

 Commissioners Addis, Nelson, Dreher, MacMillan and Brown composed the majority; Commissioner Zeigler dissented.