With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". credit. This appeal followed. LAW/ANALYSIS Foggie asserts the circuit court erred in (1) failing to find substantial evidence supports the Commission’s finding that he is entitled to permanent total disability compensation benefits, (2) affirming the Commission’s finding that General Electric is entitled to credit for an unrelated award of 10% permanent partial disability to Foggie’s leg, and (3) failing to reject General Electric’s claimed credit for Foggie’s alleged service-related disability. General Electric contends, however, the order of the circuit court is interlocutory and therefore not directly appealable. We agree with General Electric, and thus dismiss this appeal. Appellate review of workers’ compensation decisions is governed by the Administr , 316 S.E.2d 385, 385 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Hunt v. Whitt, 279 S.C. 343, 343, 306 S.E.2d

A: holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court
B: holding the order of the circuit court did not involve the merits of the action and was therefore interlocutory and not reviewable by the supreme court for lack of finality
C: holding the commissions order reversing an award and remanding the case to the single commissioner to take further testimony was not final and not appealable to the circuit court until the commissions final determination regarding the single commissioners award the court construed the language in a provision of the code that states appeals from the commission to the circuit court shall be under the same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions  and stated an appeal to the circuit court will not lie from an interlocutory order of the commission unless it affects the merits citation omitted
D: holding an appeal from a circuit court order remanding a workers compensation case for the purpose of making specific findings of fact is interlocutory and not reviewable by the court of appeals
B.