and i would start off by saying i recognize that it is solely within the province of the commission to wait eons you understand better reviewing courts function whether it's the local circuit court disavowed the opinions of the treating doctor and said that many of his opinions didn't have the foundation to support nonetheless your honor as well county circuit court failed to aid you or to any of those precepts i just mentioned and despite those the admonitions came to the unwarranted conclusion that the reversal and we may end of the commission decision was in order and they found that the first commission's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and i would venture to say by implication they found the circuit court found the commission's decision to be irrational the underlying case involved questions of medical  i would refer the court to my appendix a four through seven you'll find be certain parts of the arbitrator's decision which was affirmed in adopted by the commission when you do so one is provided with a thought process by which the commission chose to accept or reject various factual and medical evidence placed before it the findings there were cogent and compelling and should not have been tampered instance that six precisely what they did and they took great pains it seems to explain your reasoning and that's within those cited appendix pages but suit to you they're saying this is a simple case you're saying that the commission there was appropriate that's not what we're about here and it seems to me furthermore i want to just make one other point i can't tell you what the circuit court found to be irrational that shows that issue summary reversal there is not so much as one who were in the order and i think you have to and it's and that explains why they thought the commission's decision was against the m week it simply says against the manifest weight of the evidence reverse and remain so there's no guidance there the commission on the other hand and perhaps i'm starting to repeat myself  the adjuster in this case terminated mr wagner's benefits at that time the adjuster terminated mr wagner's benefits for reasons unknown but assumed to be the incident with the dog at the time that the adjuster terminated the benefits in this case he just had no medical evidence to support that decision on the other hand the petitioner at that time had provided a report in that office no from d weinger discussing the stepping over of the dog to be a true and student and that the l four five disk had been injured in the initial accident in october two thousand and four the petitioner also had an independent medical exam performed see who said that the l four five disk was injured that was causing his pain why while he was in therapy requiring the alter sat those issues and the dog incident again aggravated the disc that was already injured in the initial and sudden this is provided to the respondent yet they did not try this case which is not pride this is a case that requires medical testimony there's numerous medical issues so finally in october the respondent gets an independent medical exam four months after the adjusters already decided that there is no medical cause ation in this case and they get dr del fine and i know why they got d three children you're waiting around six years for surgery you would think in a case where this dog incident is a big factor that you would be clear whether dr del higher even knew how the incident occurred but if you read the reports and evidence here he calls it a fall or a trip in a fall well that's not what it was mr wagner at the time i was stepping over a small dog into a void stepping on the dog that stepped around it and then had this increase in his back circuit court are that final check and balance for an injured worker to make sure that there is not an injustice done to either party whether it's the respondent or the petitioner in this case we can't just because a doctor submits a report with the contrary opinion saying well we've got battling experts and they can decide dr dale hires report has to have some watchable factual basis to support it or it should not be considered and then and  opposite conclusion is clearly apparent like this m r i issue if dr del hires going to give an opinion on whether the l four five disk was injured in october i think it would have been nice for dr delphi hammer to actually have looked at least the report so that's the second basis there are dr del ira calls mr wagner's post operative treatment normal that is contrary to watch it's irrational if you look at the records and in the treating doctor said in this case there's one no where there's no mention of pain all the physical therapy notes talk about him having problems throwing a ball can't write in a car had to get out many times the ultracet which is a narcotic can't even touch his pain he's still off work just nine days before this incident where he steps over a dog again a very trivial incident as described by dr weinger he gets a c t scan in what case and won't post operative back surgery case are petitioners getting cat scans looking for fractures and other problems he could not have looked at this record he's just making a summary conclusion in that regard and you look at these conclusions the doctor don't hire him or provide and they have regard you can't give his opinion any type of credibility you have to knock it out in fact how many times do you see a doctor who's treating someone look back and says and roger spac that elsewhere five this was a pain generator i was focused on that this fragment but the problems he's having with his extension and i'm range of motion and therapy is out of normal and looking back at it that was also a problem not just the display low so dr weiner at least considers these factors and then comes to an opinion doctor don't blame or starts with this conclusion that the adjuster made in july when they cut up his benefits with no medical han i don't think there's any controversy to that but that's where we get into the fray with opi well it does because the end the real question here is what the hell four or five deaths is that decision that that in that that disk wasn't injured in the initial accident against the know what is the theory that you are or are while the dog incident there's no doubt that condition changed after that the act of stepping over the dog did it aggravated or make a symptoms worse that's true i think based upon the records here but the focus is on was that this car needed and damaged in the initial injury and there is the met was a commission against the manifest weight and finding there was no injury to that this if you find mapped in the subsequent incident is not ultracet pain an extension is clearly evidence of still no sort of central problem the spine which the doctors talk about it's just not subjective complaints but it's the type of complaints that he had when he was in physical therapy a history of a back consume porton to appreciate that not only was the commission called upon to resolve medical fact questions but the questions in general and by that i'm referring to the door when  exclusive one another the commission also had to determine what was the magnitude of that separate aside from the issue of whether the l four disk was ever even injured in the original injury and it was not we paid as you know for the l five s one surgery the man recovered beautifully within six days the doctor said he doesn't have any particular component those  prior to him either stepping over or tripping over the dog the therapist in their records and there's no reason for them to obfuscate things said man had no complaints of pain he has all this ridiculous worry after he tripped over the dog and you have other citations and one of the judges mentioned them in the one about him the doctor their doctor insisting the basis of my opinion is and large are measured by the fact that he had ongoing ridiculous component ever since his original accident and the arbitrator adopted by the by the commission i mean lays that notion flat out as in no i think one of you read everything but the last sentence and that's when the commission says the foundation for dr winders opinion is not supported by the record so if dr wiener wants to say ok i'm now looking at elf or m r i there is now a disk i'm saying there was always one even though all i've read is his record i find that to be a preposterous leap of faith but it doesn't really matter what i find to be stretching and it doesn't i can really matter what console wants to maintain the one set of facts should be what's important here is that we are and we are supposed to respect the medical judgment of the commission and korea for very good reason because they see hundreds of these cases they know who these doctors are they're familiar with the terminology they build up a bank of experience and in this instance they have concluded and not without good reason and not without giving us their reason why we should turn down the health board five disks and something totally separate from the c accident when we get to the circuit court unfortunately  and i wish i could give you more insight but i've never seen one of these in thirty years we're in judge simply says reversing remey on and doesn't doesn't give the parties any guidance as to why they thought the commission decision was sold or roni is that a rose to violate the standard that we're now hearing to judge the case thank