Escobar v. Federal Express

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Jairo Escobar, Respondent, v. Federal Express Corporation, Employer, and Sedgwick CMS, Servicing Agent, Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2011-199467 Appeal From the Appellate Panel South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-514 Submitted September 4, 2012 Filed September 12, 2012 AFFIRMED R. Daniel Addison, of Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, of Columbia, for Appellant. Scott M. Anderson, of Grimes Teich Anderson, LLP, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Federal Express Corporation appeals the ruling of the Appellate Panel of the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission ordering it to provide a psychological evaluation to Jairo Escobar to determine whether his depression is causally related to an admitted work injury. Federal Express argues Escobar failed to meet his burden of proof and the order impermissibly shifts this burden to Federal Express. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: S.C. Code Ann. § 42-15-80(A) (Supp. 2011) ("After an injury and so long as he claims compensation, the employee, if so requested by his employer or ordered by the commission, shall submit himself to examination, at reasonable times and places, by a qualified physician or surgeon designated and paid by the employer or the commission."). AFFIRMED. SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.