of improvement or worsening of the injury on which the original award was based.” Gattis v. Murrells Inlet VFW # £10420, 353 S.C. 100, 109, 576 S.E.2d 191, 196 (Ct.App.2003) (quoting Krell v. S.C. State Hwy. Dep’t, 237 S.C. 584, 118 S.E.2d 822 (1961)); 5 Arthur Larson, Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 131.03 (2004). The County’s argument appears to resemble a species of claim preclusion, though the County does not refer to it as such. Basically, the County argues that because an award by a single commissioner is not a final adjudication unless neither party appeals to the full commission, the change of condition must occur after review of the initial award by the full commission is completed. See Riddle v. Fairforest Finishing Co., 198 S.C. 419, 424, 18 S.E.2d 341, 343 (1942) (<HOLDING>). In other words, under principles of res
holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court holding that an argument not made to the circuit court cannot be raised on appeal 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 because the single commissioners award is not a final adjudication a party may not appeal directly to the circuit court holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence