Commission, in making its determination on permanent total disability, considered a statement from Dr. Tollison which was to have been excluded from the record. The court thus remanded the case to the Commission with instructions to review the record without considering the excluded material and to determine whether its findings and conclusions should be altered in any way. The circuit court remanded the issue of the 30% disability assessed by the Veterans Administration for Foggie’s combat-related post- traumatic stress disorder, finding the Commission made “absolutely no ruling and no findings of any kind” on the issue, and instructed the Commission to review the record and applicable law and make specific findings concerning General Electric’s entitlement to the claim 1, 622 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Our courts have recognized that, in some
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 holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court 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 holding interlocutory order of the circuit court remanding the workers compensation matter for taking additional medical evidence did not involve the merits of the action and therefore was not reviewable by the court for lack of finality