somewhat interesting in the standpoint that this body remained in this case previously to the commission for the purpose of in somehow remedying an inconsistent fight and i will do well too much on the prior decision but the bottom line is the arbitrator filed the accident found with my client was entitle to temporary total disability benefits that he had surgery which was not related to that injury and they ad d no further medical expenses should be paid no for the we are to do this before the commission and the commission in the person of kevin lamb born in the other two members of his panel similarly affirm in adopted this decision so we came up here you heard my argument and you said back and said fix this so it goes back to commissioner lamm board with two other members of the same to summarily affirmed at the first time and when i read that decision i must confess my thought process was he wanted and i described benefits so let's figure out a way to do it but accommodating that opinion he type metal structure there's rebar tight mirror material brace and he falls backwards and twists subsequent to this event he testifies i get out of this that piece of the record is the purview by the commission because they say this was in a unwitnessed accident so error number one if you will that struck me usually those are the friday afternoon injuries that don't get reported until monday or tuesday this man reported the same as they say with you saying his own intuitive appeal because obviously not every industrial accident and they have a bunch of witnesses but the results of a normative normal degenerative process and i'm looking at him and as who examined him and treated him never offered a causation opinion so how do we find that the commission erred when it was up at work over images well the major words that we lawyers love to see in a doctor's report which are uniformly objected to his being created because of lead litigation even though there embodied in treating record is i find within a reasonable degree of medical surgical examination and finds positive results to tests clinically he determines the being needs an m r i in this first chart no but dr recites the seen their records and they document did as if we were composing them word for dictating to them what they should put in their chart but the question this before this court is this this man reports an event immediately they stipulate can i notice he goes to it back or three days later positive clinical findings warning an m r i he gets the m r i and lo and behold there is the appearance with acute injury he has a torn were the words the doctor used in the operative report in the previous case to now be any pristine this a college that's now torn another question let's talk about that or or i have no way of knowing what dr dorothy heard interpreted listen to documented i have no way of knowing what he heard we know what he wrote ok we know what he wrote what's disingenuous about it and jim and him in his reports he talks about he removes the documentation in the story about how this happened back to or simply says i don't understand why he didn't tell me anything that i would agree with am hired by the insurance company this is the second time this guy's been scheduled for this if you see him i don't have any document i don't have any films or reports regarding actuaries already m r i but i do know that he had a condition some time ago eight nine years ago so i conclude that this guy's problem is need for this surgery is not related based upon my own opinion that he has the result of anything other than what happened on february seventh if it was done with this were somebody to tell us that worst passing was working by himself there was a guy in the big truck with the those home determined before review situations i am convinced that the commissioner determined that he was going to not allow this to be a compensable claim for whatever reason i know that's a strong statement but i can commission twice including the fact the by the fact that we have two people on the panel the second time so five different commissioners and an arbitrator unanimously healthy exact same thing all throughout this entire litigation that there was an causation pinion as we're used to seeing but in his report equally documents his history of the accident and problems that help his case with your response today my my response to that is if if he would have won this case that might have supported a finding of the commission that there was a chain of events and there was something in the medical records the problem for the petitioners he lost he lost so even though there might have been some evidence to establish this to support a theory of causation the commission ruled contrary to that so it's irrelevant the issue is whether or not the issue isn't whether or not there's some evidence in this record which would have supported him from establishing causation that's not the issue the issue is whether or not there is some evidence and this record to support the commission's the term a nation that there was no confirmation but why did admission say there was no cause because they th agree with the original decision that he failed proves causally related the next sentence is in a riding at this decision the commission takes special knows of both the history of the accident fisher provided at the arbitration hearing as well as the descript issue they didn't have to reach that issue it did matter they affirmed the arbitrator's finding that there was an accident however it was in consequential and out the commission gets up little less clear than what you're making it out to be here because they really were examining whether or not there was an accident so again in terms of the decision itself in this decision does that indicate that they are a person strictly on the causation it does not and that's why again that would be harmless error because they already ruled there was an accident so there is but there is no reversal of that anywhere in this the solution i'm here is saying go ahead find an accident i have no problem with that that's in the record it's again because that's an issue which has been settled and doesn't change the outcome i don't care whether there's an exit or not it's it's clear that the arbitrator rule there was an accident that has never been reversed the issue is causation and if the commission is free to choose between two competing doctors on the issue of causation what is so wrong with going with going with only one when the other side doesn't even bother to put an issue of an opinion causation out there for the commission is well well within their rights in a situation like that to go with the want of pain or if they want to look at the medical records and come up with roy i guess they could if they wanted to do that they could of they chose not to do that in this case they chose not to do that they chose to go with doctor or you're right i think that they did make some comments on the man that could have suggested maybe there wasn't an accident but just like the odor issues they stop short of reversing on that issue and even it in it didn't it didn't matter anyways it was already think that they what they were driving at is i think the commission did it by a magician or was proud of all they didn't find that that that sounds like a by somebody who's never had their feet wet concrete one again he won on the issue by accident i think what the unanimously twice that doctor's opinion as to causation the commission is well within the province to do that in fact that's their function and it's not our job here today to reweigh the of us thank you from counsel wants you to believe it is and what he suggests is and i've heard many times over the many years is they get to pick whoever they want and i have been before this body and posed the question well mr alexie your doctor says a their doctor says b they choose b what he wants to do and at that point i surrender in fact i don't think i've ever been before this body or i was fighting in the initial  stage that you should ignore the opinion of their hired gun versus my higher good i don't have fire guns the question is this did the commission reasonably review the evidence and if they did are they permitted to make reasonable inference i answer that in the affirmative here however we have a significantly flawed oh pinion of doctor or he says with out you have a good decision the guy's problem is not related to that event it's related to his significant arthritis the arthritis if he had spot his narrative at that point i wouldn't be here because whether i like it or not they could choose to accept that opinion but that's not what he said because then he goes on and he says but i don't know how severe it is i don't know how bad it is i don't know whether in fact even here is it my interjection there he didn't say that because i didn't take any actuaries i didn't review any m honor's i think this record demonstrates a total lack of involvement of the commission i believe and i argued this the first time i was before you the fact that the arbitrator even mentions a prior settlement isn't surface objections to even going into the ad because there is no credit do you agree with to it we went into we were never taught so how  condition of the bill being in one nine hundred ninety six was simply continue to the two thousand up sold when in fact they involve two distinct areas of the need thank you for your