THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Clifton Sparks, Appellant,
Palmetto Hardwood, Inc., and Palmetto Timber S.I. Fund c/o Walker, Hunter & Associates, Respondents.
Appeal From Florence County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-525
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 13, 2010
Edward L. Graham, of Florence, for Appellant.
Weston Adams, III, Helen F. Hiser, and M. McMullen Taylor; all of Columbia, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: This workers' compensation appeal arises out of Appellant Clifton Sparks' injuries to his head and other body parts. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issue 1, we find only the ruling of the Workers' Compensation Commission (the Commission) that Sparks is totally and permanently disabled pursuant to section 42-9-30 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2000) is the law of the case. See ML-Lee Acquisition Fund, LP v. Deloitte & Touche, 327 S.C. 238, 241, 489 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1997) (noting an unappealed ruling is the law of the case); as to the remaining issues on appeal, we find substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission's decision. See S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-10 (Supp. 2000) ("[A]ny person determined to be totally and permanently disabled who as a result of a compensable injury . . . has suffered physical brain damage . . . shall receive the benefits for life."); Jordan v. Kelly Co., 381 S.C. 483, 486, 674 S.E.2d 166, 169 (2009) (finding that the final determination of witness credibility and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are reserved solely to the Commission); Therrell v. Jerry's Inc., 370 S.C. 22, 30, 633 S.E.2d 893, 897 (2006) ("[T]he burden is on the claimant to prove that an injury is compensable within the act."); Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 136, 276 S.E.2d 304, 307 (1981) (holding that an appellate court will not overturn a finding by an administrative agency unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence).
THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.