when she applied for short-term disability benefits, Hargrove never indicated her disability resulted from an accident at work. Hargrove’s behavior indicated she herself did not consider her injury to be work-related. We will not disturb the appellate panel’s decision regarding the weight to be given this evidence. III. References to social security and retirement benefits Hargrove complains that evidence of her social security and retirement benefits were improperly considered in denying her claim for compensation. We find no error. Hargrove argues correctly that procedures regarding retirement and social security benefits cannot be used as a basis for a deciding a workers’ compensation claim. See Stephenson v. Rice Servs., 314 S.C. 287, 289-90, 442 S.E.2d 627, 628 (Ct.App. 1994) (<HOLDING>), rev’d on other grounds, 323 S.C. 113, 473
holding that a temporarily totally disabled person may invoke protection under disability discrimination laws holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have an intent to file a claim for va benefits holding that retroactive award of benefits proper remedy where district court made finding that claimant was disabled holding the commission cannot rely on a va rating to find a claimant was totally disabled holding that the va could not rely on 38 cfr  14808 to circumvent the authority of the court to require a va employee to provide expert or opinion testimony