With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2007). “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent the Commission’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Id. LAW/ANALYSIS I. Injury to Lower Back First, Burnette asserts substantial evidence does not support the finding she did not injure her lower back in the June 2007 incident. We agree. An injured employee “who has a permanent physical impairment or preexisting condition” may receive benefits for a subsequent work-related disability if he establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that “the subsequent injury aggravated the preexisting condition or permanent physical impairment.” S.C.Code Ann. § 42-9-35 (Supp.2011); see also Mullinax v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 318 S.C. 431, 436-37, 458 S.E.2d 76, 79 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, “an employee who suffers a

A: recognizing that a preexisting disease or infirmity of the employee does not disqualify a claim arising out of employment if the employment aggravated accelerated or combined with the disease or infirmity to produce disability for which compensation is sought
B: holding that psychological conditions resulting from workrelated trauma are compensable
C: recognizing the natural consequences flowing from a compensable injury absent an independent intervening cause are compensable as well as the aggravation of a preexisting condition infirmity or disease by a workrelated injury
D: holding that when a preexisting infirmity is aggravated by repetitive minute trauma as a result of the ordinary and necessary duties of employment the disability resulting from such aggravation is compensable as a personal injury under the workers compensation statute
C.