at the time she had surgery with dr fresh from a poor doctor question which were found all kinds other stuff going on in the knee was a bad knee said she'll probably need a total knee replacement at some point but released her hair six seven years after the accident and he concluded that  would like and my client would like this court to look at the facts of the case look at the fact that the condition in her knee changed between her release from dr hesham a poor before she went to go see a doctor nudie for the total knee replacement and no bad it's not the same condition that she's getting a total knee replacement for that resulted from the december eighteenth two thousand and seven accident she's doing well enough to go back to work she's doing great she's got some residual pain but that payment has changed the pain that was in the front of her knee is completely gone now it's all in the back she's also have she's also got swelling going down and the caps when she starts making new complaints in june of two thousand and eight now she's got a swelling in the ankle in the calf as well as around the knee none of that was present before i think her condition changed enough that the manifest weight of the and the the fact showing that demonstrate that it's no longer a connected the total knee is no longer connected to the accident evaluating her three years after the carpal tunnel supposedly existed without knowing what her job duties were he's he's about awaiting her for a number of conditions off in fact all the conditions involved in these three cases so he produces the opinion that he needs to produce it was related because those were her job duties but he doesn't know what the job duties are he never explained those commission incorrectly rejected back to crandall's opinion because they didn't look at the facts of the case the facts of the case show that dr solomon's opinion isn't supported by any facts in the case it's not supported by anything at all commission said yes but the commission of in doing so or look what dr crandell did actually look at and it's not that he didn't consider the job duties he did and the fact that she was working there for sixteen years but he looked at in this case we're disputing it for two reasons accident and causation will go to accident first on july twenty seventh well in the months leading up to july twenty seventh two thousand and eleven miss thomason had had a number of problems with her shoulder she even had an m r i which shows through and through tears she'd had three injections into that shoulder dr we had discussed with her the possibility of undergoing surgery for her shoulder he presented it as an shows twenty six minutes later at ten twenty six she called dr lee's office she called dr lee's office saying she had had an injection or right shoulder on six six eleven and is now having a lot of pain and redness to the shoulder wants to know what she needs to do despite having an accident twenty six minutes earlier she tells no one about it at dr lee's office it's not in the know in fact later on in the other phone no allegedly occurred at ten o'clock in the morning saying she had had an injection is now having a lot of pain and redness wants to know what to do if that dispute as you saw it leave the next day that's correct your honor he took her off work and recommended surgery that's correct and so what's the problem the problem is is the commission that discounted the testimony of our witness jeff j based on the timing of everything that occurred on july twenty seventh two thousand and eleven they specifically found mr jake was not credible because no appointment had been made for the next day according to the commission's reading of the facts until three o'clock until three o'clock on the day of the accident at the earliest it's for that reason that they completely discounted mr jakes testimony and found that it was the petitioners testimony which is most internally internally consistent with the facts as they were presented our position is and the position and the testimony from mr jay is that no accident actually occurred on july twenty seven and look at the facts of this case demonstrates the commission got it wrong the commission got it wrong when they determined that mr tate was not credible based on the timing of everything that happened on july twenty seventh twenty eleven  constraints that the commission got it wrong of the evidence and that's what we're watching happen here not only does she not tell dr lee's office about an accident that occurred twenty six minutes earlier she then testifies that she goes to find respondents safety person who goes to lunch at noon but was already is something there's plenty of time here in between when this accident supposedly occurred when she finally goes to find somebody and when she does she goes she for she eventually finds mr j and that's where we start getting into disputes over whose testimony is more credible and supported by the facts in this case and as i pointed out to mr justice hudson we believe and it's pointed out in the briefs that the most logical story is that she did not actually sustain an accident on july twenty seventh and that she came up with that when she went to see dr lee the next day and that was when she decided that she had had an accident which require which was related to her work requiring us workers compensation to pay for the shoulder surgery that was eventually form but going to causation and the shoulder case this is somebody who's already have a recommendation a recommendation for surgery has had an m r i archigram showing serious problems and that shoulder has undergone three injections already i think the commission got her on when and then they said the petitioner was constantly demure in surgery or want to put surgery off and her condition changed this case and made their determinations we believe that the record does not support any of the decisions or against the evidence in this case and if you have to go through a chronologically starting with the december eighteenth two thousand and seven never had any problem before the summer accident had the accident continued have problems afterwards significantly after the knee surgery for the knee replacements the record indicates that our client complained of pain to the point where the there was a problem so we would ask that you affirm the commission system turning to the purple heart of the second case with an accident date of may seventh two thousand and ten the evidence they did they found that in this case in this time and since testimony the description was credible believable and outweighed the testimony of mr j for that reason found causation or found accidents in regards to causation again the commission relied upon dr solomon where he indicated that the accident played a role in the survey that was ultimately performed this case and we again based on that information believe that was sufficient evidence to establish that the decision was not against the manifest weight of the evidence so in conclusion we would ask that all three claims cases be affirmed in their entire seven years after the accident occurred in the carpal tunnel case dr crandall is the only doctor who has reviewed all the medical records and petitioners job duties we would ask that demonstrate we would argue the manifest way that the evidence goes towards more dr crandell for having done that research and have that background information as well as the information regarding all her other conditions than to  again may causation based on job duties that only he knows with respect to the shoulder case we've already talked about the testimony as it relates to accident on causation nothing changed on july twenty seventh two thousand and eleven with respect to or shoulder complaints she rated her shoulder pain the exact same both between and after the the alleged accident occurred and that julie testified there was no way to know whether or not anything p operated on was acute versus chronic given all the problems she had had before including a discussion of whether or not she would need surgery we would argue the manifest weight goes to