significance (if any) than the MRI of 2004.... ” Because no evidence indicates this opinion originated from a medical provider, yet it appears in the single commissioner’s order, we are forced to conclude it is the medical opinion of the single commissioner, adopted by the Commission. Moreover, we find substantial evidence in the record does not support the Commission’s findings that Burnette neither injured nor aggravated a preexisting injury to her lower back, or that any such injury or aggravation either “returned to baseline” or resulted from an independent intervening accident. See Potter, 395 S.C. at 23, 716 S.E.2d at 126 (permitting the Commission to disregard medical evidence only when other competent evidence exists in the record); Edwards, 273 S.C. at 579, 257 S.E.2d at 755 (<HOLDING>). The record contains Burnette’s medical
holding a claimant must prove entitlement to benefits by the preponderance of the evidence which is not sustained by mere surmise or conjecture holding that experts medical opinion constituted no evidence because it was based upon speculation and surmise rather than reasonable medical probability holding that a nonmovant cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely  on the basis of conjecture or surmise holding that a court may not engage in conjecture or surmise in determining the offense for which a defendant was convicted holding a finding of fact by the commission may not be based upon surmise conjecture or speculation but must be founded on evidence of sufficient substance to afford a reasonable basis for it