With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". seeking treatment elsewhere. Id. at 567, 167 S.E.2d at 567. In this case, Dr. Epstein indicated Clark was not a suitable candidate for treatment and referred him for pain management. That treatment was unsuccessful, however. Because Clark related the continuing symptoms to the treating physicians and was unable to obtain relief, he was justified in seeking treatment elsewhere. Although the more appropriate procedure would have been for Clark to seek an order from the full commission before engaging Dr. Greenberg for treatment and surgery, we find that under Ford the full commission was not outside its discretion in ordering the County to pay for the surgery and continuing treatment, once it determined the treatment was medically necessary. See Gattis, 353 S.C. at 111, 576 S.E.2d at 197 (<HOLDING>). We find no merit to the County’s argument

A: holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed
B: holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed
C: holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage
D: holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee
C.