With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 455, 535 S.E.2d 438, 442 (2000). Because these issues have not been properly considered by the Commission, the Commission having included admittedly excluded evidence on one and having failed to make any findings whatsoever on the other, the circuit court was correct in remanding the matters to the Commission. See Baldwin v. James River Corp., 304 S.C. 485, 487, 405 S.E.2d 421, 422-23 (Ct.App.1991) (wherein the court of appeals remanded the case to the workers’ compensation commission because the commission made insufficient findings of fact so as to permit appellate review of the commission’s decision denying an award); Drake v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 241 S.C. 116, 124, 127 S.E.2d 288, 292-93 (1962), overruled on other grounds, Hunt v. Whitt, 279 S.C. 343, 306 S.E.2d 621 (1983) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in this

A: holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact
B: holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it
C: holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids
D: holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case
C.