treatment after june fifteenth two thousand and four as it relates to the repetitive trauma injuries she suffered as of june thirteenth two thousand and four the standard of review for this case is manifestly to be evidence i have an back in addition to that she used a malfunctioning forklift truck that jostled her significantly throughout her work activities she presented to the emergency room because she had a progression of back  the cervical pain she was diagnosed with a back strain and was told follow up with her primary care physician she did that on june fifteenth two thousand and four that was dr cabin on the commission said that because herman performed an independent medical evaluation on march twenty fifth two thousand and four talk to one minute noted in there that he had received information that the harness had been replaced in fact at one point me and even quotes that she said it had been replaced he doesn't date that as to when she indicated that he wrote prince's when she had returned back to work and there's a further issue about time saw following that initial period from june fourteenth of june seventeenth of being off work but dr hirmand doesn't have any other information that the current harness was replaced and he also doesn't know exactly when the harness was replaced now the commission also relies on the report from d to when the harness and then replace all the evidence that actually is here before you with regard to whether or not the harness was replaced shows that it hadn't been replaced and till she was taken off of work in february two thousand and five and i'll point testimony it's in the record on page one twenty from it the sister that said in february of two thousand and five the pain had gotten so bad she couldn't take it anymore because she had continued to work and continued to be harmed by the this specific date the harness was replace but she did rat prints in multiple places but she continued to work through february of zero five with the ill fitting harness and remember that's not the only thing that was causing her pain according to all the doctors it was also  she informed her supervisor by her testimony in february of two thousand and five there is a lot of friends in the record and actually it's and your record is page but he didn't go on to testify that he had it replaced in june of two thousand and four and later in his testimony nine pages later actually said to you one fifty four approximately he testified it was replaced by march of two thousand and five correct but big commission found it had been replaced by that data primary care physicians appointment on june fifteenth two thousand and four it was remember the commissions that are conditions only temporary because she didn't sustain any ongoing problems because the harness had been replaced and so the commission made the assumption or the legal backed up and losing that it was replaced in june of seventeenth by you will know that she actually was off from the fourteenth of the seventeenth for an unrelated medical condition that being depressing now that the back injury she was not taken out to the back injury until february of two thousand and three i want usually return to work because according to holmes no should who are is going to return to work an individual seventy to twenty four and dr comment received that information he indicates from her in a conversation she testified inconsistent with that there's no other action between the need for the cervical fusion and the work injury he specifically asked for those records this is a response i am me who gets his report and they look at it and they see that he's asking for those records they know that if those records are produced that show actually they're getting a connection and the medical records remember that the commission's pacifically said that because there wasn't a history of the work injury in the medical records into february of zero five that's one of the reasons why they said there was no causal connection after june fifteenth two thousand and four men  calling at trial testified i thought maybe in june of zero four that it was due to the harness in the forklift i wasn't sure but by february of zero five and this is on cross examination she said by february of zero five i knew that was the cause of my injury plastic duran situation manifestation of a repetitive traumatic injury she says in february of zero five i knew that was the cause for sure and every medical doctor who saw her steps up into their own set that was the you can draw from that is that it's because he would have noted no answer be important given a cause of connection so again you can use a lot of weight to dr herman's report and you can infer that from his report doctors elton's report his flock to the exact same reason that the commission's decision a spot well we also assume number one the harness was replaced right away number two that there was no history in the medical records initially so that it's not a cause related and number three that she was off work for a significant period of time in two commission's decision with regard to calls of connection find that there was a calls a connection between her truck medical treatment following june fifteenth two thousand and four in the original repetitive trauma in your she says saying as of june thirteenth two thousand and four and i ask that you remain there for further orders on the other is against the manifest weight of the evidence the opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent and the opponent can't meet her burden to compel a reversal of the commission's decision commission found that the  employee sustained a temporary and minor aggravation of a preexisting cervical condition they base that on the petition i'm sorry on the injured workers testimony and a medical where dr to have not released says the petitioner i'm sorry the injured worker from care releases the worker to return back to work as of june seventeenth of two thousand and four the commission decisions their findings are supported within the record mostly by the injured workers on medical records particularly for the medical records that predate february of two thousand and doctors you're referring to opinions were flawed because they were based on actual determinations they were not flawed but there was no in actual inaccurate factual determination because what my opponent is relying on to make that argument herself never testified as to a specific date correct as we can only deduce and you can deduce it by either the claimants testimony which i would find unreliable or you can deduce it from the medical records the medical records indicate roughly june of two thousand and four as to when the harness was replaced it's not my position to clarify the record it's not what i'm attempting to do it's not what i claim to be capable of doing the record is not entirely clear the confusion arises when the claimant testifies that it was sometime after february of two thousand and five and by the way were given the february of two thousand and five date as a date when the claimant went off of work because of its retreating back pain is what i believe we were told today no not so when i went off of work in february of two thousand and five a bit because she had a heart attack that's actually protesting the law there were two thousand and five she had heard and at that point she essentially decided that her condition was work related we we asked her part and we asked her i asked her what is it that you would give me this revelation that in two thousand and five when you're off work for a heart attack that everything the chrissy did it all the treatment that preceded it and now all the treatments subsequent is related to a harness at work she didn't have an explanation she couldn't give an explanation because there's not an explanation and we're also going to characterise the characterization of a harness with a bottle that repeatedly beaten in the back of the net i don't think you'll find that description in the claimant's testimony or in any of the medical records he had an ill fitting harness that she claims was hitting one of the back of the neck never is a claim to with such severity as we were given today but all of the commission's findings are supported by the treatment records and i will reiterate that my opponents focus on records that do support her position misses the issue the question is what isn't whether or not there is some she was released from care for june seventeenth two thousand and four she was released to return back to work whether or not she did also not there within the record but why was she released at that time because her condition the fact that her condition resolved by june seventeenth two thousand and four is contained within her medical records not just the june seventeenth two thousand and four records but her subsequent treatment records in july early july i believe it's twelve and twenty first she treats for depression not for cervical conditions when she go when she when she treats with dr naveed on july twenty second roughly five weeks or so after the claimed events she's not treated for a cervical condition she's treating for her lumbar condition that's also noted by the commission and it's noted that to the extent that she's no longer seeking treatment for cervical condition for at least five weeks after the injury her condition has resolved that's why or treatment and her that's why her treatment was found not compensable not related to the work injury after that point during the event would be your position other correct that is essentially that's the case of or sunni versus the industrial commission but if you look at the reason why these opinions are more you need only determine we just look into how the retained several years after the work event with the claimant is telling her doctors that this relates to an injury that i sustained at work in june of two thousand and four so that's what they record if you tell them that your arm pain or whatever injuries sustained relates to a specific event they will then report it and they will related to that specific event what you have to look to when determining whether or not that's credible is and july twenty ninth august two aug twenty sixth september ninth september twenty three september twenty four twenty second december twenty third jean worry twenty fifth of two thousand and five she never once says brief they take issue with that claim best not in admission of anything because that's complaints regarding her shoulder condition not her cervical condition while if you compare the two she's treating for the exact same body part and complaints in august twenty sixth two thousand and four that she did in june of two thousand and four in june excuse me in june it was upper back pain shoulders and neck or time in august it was trapezius and over shoulder pain same body parts those are also cervical distributions and on that date she signs remain and says these are not work related conditions and by the way what is she diagnosed with august twenty sixth two thousand and four cervical arthritis how could she possibly claim that it's not the same body not the same body part as the cervical surgery that she it's that she subsequently received and i do want to mention something about the timeline here we're told about a work harness causing the injury while that were her is causing the injury doesn't resurface until february of two thousand and five and i reiterate february of two thousand and five she goes off to work for a heart attack not because of her back that's in the record it's even in her testimony but before february of two thousand and five no explanation no claim of working through the medical records from february of two thousand and five until roughly august of two thousand and seven she's telling her doctors that it was a harness by august of two thousand and seven then it becomes a harness and  truck by the time she gets to testimony she's testifying both to work harness and it's this live truck that just was me around but if you look at when she starts claiming that she doesn't claim the work harness until february two thousand and five in my opponent's brief she testifies as she claims within the brief that after july of two thousand and four there's a consistent history of work as the cause and the next paragraph begins medical records showing absolutely no claim of a work injury showing in august twenty sixth two thousand and four specific the night to which she signs for name of a work injury then in february of two thousand and five she decides and she individual who a roughly a year after a very minor cervical ever ever vacation decides that the host of conditions that she's dealing with now are all related to harness that she wore or relevant but in order to get someone to pay they've got to check a box if you look at the actual history taken from the physician or with each of the doctor she says it is work related and remember that she didn't know for sure whether it's work related until feed who had been treating her but reliable for said in his records it was causing related to the use of the harness and the forklift at work it's then that she has these conversations with the doctors and then she realizes yes this is work related yes it's caused by the harness in the forklift prior to then she's got a problem she's got pain she wants to get out or she wants to go back to work she goes for treatment because she knew the furnace was getting fairly forceful manner and we knew there was a problem with the hearse absolutely by making the jump that that causes severe pain other than you know basically surface pain or muscle pain that's a stretch to some people most lay persons or more are now it's as experience or versed in medical terminology they may not know that most doctors would agree with that statement now i do want to go back to your question about that rock friends and doctor comments report about their harness being replacement she returned back to work if you go to the application requests for your informant in the record you will know the respondent stipulated that for the work related injuries she was not off of work until february fifteenth she returned to work june five two thousand and six that stipulated by respondent and trial thousand and six by stipulation of the parties that lastly your hours unless you have any further questions for me again i think if you look at all of the evidence and where a doctor harlan's opinion highly just like they commission it he said i just need to see those other records to see if this is causing related he asked he said what he's looking for in those records just say it's not work related the respondent did not send those records to him why you can infer because they knew he was going to say it was because he related you can give him as much credit as you want and infer that same conclusion then the only medical opinion that says this isn't work related is that opinion from doctors l b because every other treat or every other i am a physician said this was c