considered causation specifically the commission required mr bailey to not only group causation between his condition and the work accident but the commission also required mr bailey to disprove that's true that's totally speculative because the evidence of the fun trailer bump to seal a trailer where he started working never broke the spear there's no evidence anywhere in the record that a bump on the need best the last mention of a boil anywhere in the medical records the employee's testimony which is an rebuttal is that the oil dried up after two days before he started we were so let's look at the evidence where is this allege one after that it doesn't exist the employee that day after his accident was seen coming out of the shower by coworker tied reed reed testifies he saw one on the right leg he didn't see any boyle thirteen days after the accident with a knee have swollen up and become painful the supervisor takes him to the occupational medicine in tulsa the physicians assistant a few op ed place mentions no any oil was that part of the problem why didn't the claimant tell him about the oil because it wasn't there there's no evidence that it was there none whatsoever human mind your honor dr best critter the whole time no mention of him while he was in the hospital for eight days treating with mersa treating for mercy and ask you my vitus and it no mention of any hospital records he even mine open back no mention of any oil on the back and also ask out there's no other obvious signs of an open wound there's no other of new signs of infection dr best pointed out the fact the incubation period between the accident and the onset of symptoms completely consistent with the  something heavy well what about an auto accident that happened the day before that assumes an auto accident happened there that's to leave speculation that the oil was even there and even worse speculation that the oil somehow nowhere when you're in the hospital for eight days with a seriously infectious disease that no one makes notable oil it because it wasn't there and you get the overwhelming  the work intrigue was why is there any explanation for that dr vest gives a very clear reasons to support his opinion the scrape is right now hit the infection attack the nearest joint the surgery site is right they are no mention opinion that but the commission also said that dr best didn't know about pumping but he of the trailer hitch no evidence that it broke the skin there's no evidence anywhere the record bumping itself can cause mercy but the commission also pointed  all that the commission says it is totally reasonable that mr bailey did not immediately or scary shit because he didn't think it was serious and yet when he sees d vest two weeks later for need page he's somehow supposed to know that his need swelling was due to a scrape on his leg because of immediately after the diagnosis of the how did you get that scrape on your leg he told about the seams don't fall it was a pretty place so i don't know that that can be held against him that he didn't walk in and say doctor i had a oil that cleared up however many weeks ago and oh by the way i sprained my leg and how many things possibly say he's not a doctor but he can do is he supposed to know all the potential causes of condition he didn't even know causation is a question of fact for the commission and as such the commission's decision should not be overturned unless it is against the way yet the petitioners attorney has presented skin infection which is consistent with a merciless fashion now when addressing the issue of medical consultation the commission is responsible for weighing all of the evidence in this case and in this case there is no direct evidence as to cause of infection dr vass opinion is entirely based on the presumption that there is no other obvious source of infection course and by the commission's own rules specifically section seven thirty forty one i'm sorry says zero three zero point four zero the rules governing practice before the or workers compensation commission the completed requests for hearing the illinois worker's compensation commission if first came up and an issue before the circuit court and that the failure to raise an issue before the from an arbitrator in the commission results in a waiver pursuant to thomas v per specific section of the act however there think there is no question were guarding liability for keep benefits because there is no lost income during