A man who injured his back while working for a technology company and claimed full disability and mental injury has had his case reversed after the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission chopped his benefits over his lack of credibility, among other issues.

The Court of Appeals of South Carolina in its latest decision issued Wednesday has remanded the case back to the commission because the panel “did not explain how it resolved the clashing” evidence over when the man reached maximum medical improvement for his injuries, according to documents in Opinion No. 5809, in Columbia, South Carolina.

A single commissioner ruled the man was permanently and totally disabled, having proven injury to more than one body part — his back and legs — that “destroyed his earning capacity,” ordering his employer Philips Electronics would be responsible for his future medical and psychological care related to the injuries from the 2011 accident.

The full commission reversed, finding the man “was not permanently and totally disabled, suffered no psychological injury… and sustained a twenty percent permanent partial disability to his back.” The panel also concluded that the man’s “lack of credibility” on a previous work injury suffered while working for another company in 2006 “undermined the medical opinions and treatment received . . . as the opinion and conclusions of (his) providers were based upon self-serving assertions of the claimant,” documents state. It ordered the man to reimburse Philips $33,539.31, a credit owed to his employer for the temporary total benefits it had paid.

The single commissioner and the panel, however, disagreed on the timing for which the man reached maximum medical improvement, 2014 v. 2016: an issue the state appeals court called a “mystery” that would need to be resolved, agreeing with the man’s assertion that several of the panel’s findings are “factual findings are clearly erroneous,” according to documents.

“The Panel was entitled to conclude (the man’s) credibility crumbled when it was learned he had not disclosed his 2006 back injury. We are also mindful that factual findings based on credibility calls can, and often do, amount to substantial evidence that requires us to affirm,” the ruling states. “But a credibility finding has no force independent of context — deciding a party is not credible does not make all of the party’s other evidence incredible.”