THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Dexter Collins, Employee,        Respondent,

v.

The Sintra Corporation, Employer, & Employee Benefits Insurance Corporation, Carrier,        Appellants.

Appeal From Florence County
James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-389
Submitted June 9, 2003 � Filed June 10, 2003

AFFIRMED

Steve Wukela, Jr., of Florence, for Respondent.

Lindsay K. Smith-Yancey, of Charleston, for Appellants.

PER CURIAM:�� Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to all issues: Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc, 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276 S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981) (holding the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act established the standard of review for decisions by the full commission); S.C. Code Ann. � 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2002) (stating an appellate court may reverse or modify the full commission�s decision only if its findings or conclusions are �clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record�); Stokes v. First Nat�l Bank, 306 S.C. 46, 50, 410 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1991) (��[S]ubstantial evidence� is evidence which, considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached to justify its action.�); Brunson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 344 S.C. 107, 110, 542 S.E.2d 732, 733 (Ct. App. 2001) (�The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the full commission as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact� but rather must simply determine whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the full commission�s findings.); S.C. Code Ann. � 42-1-160 (Supp. 2002) (stating for an injury by accident to be compensable, it must arise out of and in the course of employment); Rodney v. Michelin Tire Corp., 320 S.C. 515, 518, 466 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1996) (�The phrase �arising out of� . . . refers to the origin of the cause of the accident.� �An injury arises out of employment when there is . . . a causal relationship between the conditions under which the work is to be performed and the resulting injury.�� (alterations added; internal citation omitted) (quoting Owings v. Anderson County Sheriff�s Dep�t, 315 S.C. 297, 299, 433 S.E.2d 869, 871 (1993))); cf. Eadie v. H.A. Sack Co., 322 S.C. 164, 168-69, 470 S.E.2d 397, 400 (Ct. App. 1996) (recognizing the �special errand� exception to the �going and coming rule�); Wright v. Wright, 306 S.C. 331, 333, 411 S.E.2d 829, 830 (Ct. App. 1991) (�In order to receive compensation the employee need not perform a duty he was expressly hired to do.� �It is sufficient if the employee is engaged in a pursuit or undertaking consistent with the contract of hire and which in some logical manner pertains to or is incidental to his employment.�� (quoting Beam v. State Workmen�s Compensation Fund, 261 S.C. 327, 332, 200 S.E.2d 83, 86 (1973))).

AFFIRMED.¹

GOOLSBY and HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, Acting Judge, concur.