current condition being a result of the aggravation that he sustained at work on july eighteenth two thousand and five or dr shapiro dr shapiro said yes he had a temporary aggravation but he couldn't say anything more than that because he was relying on a temporary division that has seventy five there are his words accident did not the summary is need for surgery we uns opinion ok to take that one step further his opinion was it did not celebrate because he was going to need that i had him convinced that the at the time of the arguments and we got back to decision that probably i didn't miss him and that's why we're here today i'm i'm confident that when this is looked upon this week this will be realized that the decision itself is wron reach for itself exactly what happened there was no change in opinion that change in opinion was the argument made by counsel it's a great argument but the fact matters that's not what happened if you look at the records from the eleventh you look at the letter that he he prepared the nerve report in response to me testimony was all consistent and i think again it goes back to the point that we have a preexisting condition no dispute about that are needed we have it documented in the records from the first d c treatment of what happened back to disc in his first date of treatment the manifest weight of the evidence the sole issue that's before you today as counsel acknowledged is that if medical causes a sham and there are conflicting medical opinions in this case commission's is that whatever the specifically because you're going to get answers is a good well i think that the key to the decision and you know is directly contrary to council's argument  not offer the opinion that the condition of bill being it's related to the motor vehicle accident the key is this medical records and answering your honor it's not just dr shapiro versus d responded well however he had a reaffirmation of his symptoms on july eighteenth two thousand and five which i believe stems from his original injury the fact that he was doing well for approximately one year just notes that  injections worked initially but ultimately the symptoms he has now are from the discrimination that occurred at work in two thousand and four i don't know how you can interpret that any other way  the symptoms now are the current condition of them being is from is related to the two thousand and four motor vehicle accident and it's from that point temporary he mentions the aggravation at work with coca cola in two thousand and five but he specifically refers to this letter for his opinions on causing him and it's not until we take the position of dr that he offers the opinion that this lifting incident accelerated the injury and resulted in the need for surgery and he was impeached because when i asked him isn't that contrary to the opinion that you offered in this record he said yes period now i'll agree there's a statement after work which petitioners counsel i think is referring to as a as a ball of fire but i don't believe it does that it just reiterate that he thinks this was an aberration and if you look at the record immediately before that he makes a comment about how he was insinuating he was insinuating in this record that  documented herniation and he did have a preexisting condition what were contending with this is own doctor's opinion and that that opinion is not credible not only credible just by itself but by the remainder of the record  later opinion by the trainer and if i am understanding the argument correctly it seems to say we had we had an accident and because we had a preexisting condition now we have  and i think that there's a greater burden america and he has the burden to establish established prosecution which is the relationship between that particular pain on that day and the end results and just to briefly and there was not a suggestion that causation was found and then somehow defeated and says protests not stand for the principle that when presented with conflicting medical evidence the commission has to accept petitioners version of the facts because it supplies a causative theory the evidence that was before the commission wholly supports its findings and therefore the commission's decision is not against the symptoms on july eighteenth i'm insinuating that the treating the second three to symptoms following that big question isn't that directly contrary to your statement doctor that quote the symptoms he has now are from the discrimination that occurred in two thousand and four and quote answer yes and that's where she stopped he continued saying however he was as i stated previously he was recent a medic for over one year and that is a long period of time when i think that a new injury reactivated his preexisting discrimination condition aggravation acceleration we have clearly documented work action on that day everyone found that there was no dispute about that we have an aggravation of the condition everyone seems to agree that there was an aggravation of the condition on that day and now there's a recognition for surgeries that which clearly accelerated need for that surgery when there was never any recognition for surgery prior to that day so i think all the best all the requirements have been met according to law to have a compensable case and the only workers compensation act and the case law and so for