In this discretionary appeal, employer Shaw Industries, Inc. appeals a ruling of the superior court, affirming the State Workers’ Compensation Board’s the “Board” award of indemnity benefits in favor of Valencia Scott. Specifically, Shaw Industries contends that the superior court erred in affirming the findings of the Board and the administrative law judge “ALJ” that Scott’s inability to continue working was caused by a fictional new injury rather than a change in condition. For the reasons noted infra , we are constrained to reverse. At the outset, we note that “in reviewing a workers’ compensation award, this Court must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing before the appellate division.”1 In addition, “the findings of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation, when supported by any evidence, are conclusive and binding, and neither the superior court nor this Court may substitute itself as a factfinding body in lieu of the State Board.”2 More specifically, “whether an employee’s inability to continue working is caused by a fictional new accident or by a change of condition is a question of fact for the ALJ, and such a finding of fact may not be disturbed on appeal if any evidence supports it.”3 Nevertheless, “erroneous applications of law to undisputed facts, as well as decisions based on erroneous theories of law, are subject to a de novo standard of review.”4
In the case sub judice , the record demonstrates that Valencia Scott had been employed by Shaw Industries for over 14 years. On February 16, 1996, Scott was performing her work as a carpet inspector when her right foot became caught in a carpet roller. As a result, she suffered a serious injury that required partial amputation of her foot and caused her to miss approximately ten months of work. During that time period, Scott received temporary total disability “TTD” benefits. In January 1997, she returned to work for Shaw Industries in the company’s customer service department, which enabled her to work while sitting or standing at a desk as needed. But the partial amputation, and the prosthesis Scott was required to wear as a result, altered her gait, which in turn began causing her significant problems in both knees. Consequently, in May 1997, she underwent bilateral knee surgery.
