whether non-inmate workers performing the same work in the same locality receive time-and-a-half pay for overtime. In addition, we observe section 24-3-430(D) requires inmates receive the “prevailing wage” paid to their non-inmate peers for comparable work. However, the question of the prevailing wage to which Tomlin is entitled has been remanded to the ALC for further proceedings. We nonetheless have jurisdiction to consider whether the prevailing wage language of section 24-3-430(D) entitles Tomlin to overtime pay because the issue remanded concerned the proper hourly rate, only. However, because we have found section 24-3-315 resolves Tomlin’s dispute, we need not address this argument. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the
holding an appellate court need not review remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal holding that appellate courts need not discuss remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of another issue disposes of the appeal