compensation commission violated the law of the case and that would be a dyno of a standard and second whether the denial of temporary total disability and medical benefits and especially setting the cessation of benefits is of eleventh two thousand and two mail were they ordered the employer to find suitable work or to do a vocational assessment they specifically stated in their decision the commission finds the opinions of dr anna  more persuasive than those of dr spencer at the time if we take a snapshot we know she didn't we miss her bell had been referred to a pain specialist and had injections to her neck we know that she'd seen in the hour just a doctor we know that she'd had a psychological exam the phone she had no overt way and we know that the commission said specifically found the petitioner's testimony credible especially in light of the testimony of her supervisor mr for tickets this decision was affirmed by the circuit court of cook county there was no further appeal so we have a snapshot at that time in that we work and say what's happened since since then so how do we look at the arbitrator in the commission's decision thirteen the i w c c one sixty two there's a summary of famine so we look to the language of the arbitrator's decision the arbitrator states of page seventeen of the decision but she's completely dives with the commission's decision in zero six three fifty in the world the case the arbitrator goes on to say regarding petitioners non carbon final complaints the  weeks following her injury the ongoing care and treatment per seated provided to the patient over the years is not causally related to the injury in two thousand to the league's x same thing that the first to walsh is opinion is contrary to the law the case in his deposition he says he admits that there's really no change the commission had already found this woman disabled so if we rule out dog dr and this is insane his opinion is controversial was the case and really just a rehashing of dr spencer's previously rejected opinion what do we have here and now look at a more mundane analysis and the manifest weight of the evidence standard which i realize i have a terrific burden standing before this panel i mean it but then let's take the scorecard and ask ourselves if we eliminate dr walsh what's left reallocating who the commission found swayze at one time is now unpersuasive according to the commission she says he's still disabled and the doctors before the prior decision dr rest all say that she's disabled since then she sees an orthopedist dr bo he says she needs pain management she goes back to mercy works in two thousand and seven they recommend a functional capacities examination n chicago and doctors request two different doctors there say she needs a comprehensive pain management program we send her to when evaluating dr dr cronin he says she's unable to work employer sensor to dr walsh and i want to discuss dr rush's opinion on the reality is the employer knew that they didn't have a card that they could play they knew they had an opinion that said the tunnel syndrome in which is finally released to take it she's found to have a valid profile in a sedentary result so if we do the scorecard the reality is limited and dr walsh it's a shout out there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that we'll let her rel was temporarily totally disabled and this is why i am asking this honorable panel to reverse the commission's decision in reinstate in a word temporary total disability compensation if this panel disagrees with me and says they are entitle to rely on dr walsh and you don't agree with my argument as regards the law the one two thousand and four relying on dr walsh so we won him a two thousand and ten exam they terminate benefits six months after the prior trial in two thousand and four six years earlier it's  never happened and frankly i think both sides share in the way for that ultimately that was the litigation continued no go it's a two thousand and four decision we don't have a result that everybody  hasn't till two thousand and six which time they start paying benefits and nobody considers this vocational evaluation and my clients are getting paid i didn't push them they didn't offer it there's certainly no question that at this stage this same order makes complete sense because we now have it on chilcot has to use a valuation saying you're a sedentary level and there's real question is there anything out there for you i i think we need to look at the trading doctors records the treating doctor from two thousand and four on really doesn't change her opinion nothing really changes there's no treatment offered there so yes she goes to are yes she's seen she's seen for updated no she's seen there's a point in there where she talks about yeah i see her every month they update her activity restriction ok she's updating her activity restrictions that doesn't mean she needs treatment that doesn't mean she needs anything other than a continued no so i think we need to the original injury not that it wasn't related but that the original injury wasn't that severe they also also found milling around but the commission i think could rely on doctor was to the extent of anything subsequent because his opinion can be interpreted as you just think he's only talking about her condition of the time he saw her oh and i'm not speaking about the condition having gone away for the first  probability after two thousand and four it was no longer necessary that she didn't necessary didn't need any treatment after two thousand but from your standpoint i mean so he's asked a question that relates back to what it previously been determined when either you know that the distinction is that dr walsh was asked to comment on his and her condition at that time in the depositions he does say that anything after two thousand and four is not necessary he does not say she didn't require any treatment at same right but but i think the commission was looking at her condition at the time of back here the commission in two thousand and twelve is entitled to look at her condition any time subsequent to that may seventh of two thousand and four hearing he has to prove an ongoing relationship he doesn't get to just say because it was once related it for ever is related he has to prove that it still continues that her current condition at the time of hearing is still related in the world it's not really because it wasn't related before two thousand well he opinion that probably didn't cause the need for a lot but at the same time he's not the finder of fact he's a doctor his opinion is that she required some treatment and she should have gotten better if the commission found at that time she didn't get better and she needed find that dr walsh's opinion is contrary to the law of the cases that we are asking right i don't think it matters because the commission still found a backbiter that her condition after may seventh was stable i should reach to my mind as of september one of two bay they gave it to her so she had the original may seventh two thousand and four hearing and then she has all the street but between may seventh two thousand and four and september one of two thousand and four she saw an orthopedic surgeon so they lacked car exhaust all of the specialt competing surgeon said she was on a surgical candidate that's the change that's the change between the first one and the second one she sees the orthopedic surgeon he doesn't think she's a circle candidate so now the commission has new evidence new findings new things to look at  wasn't demanded it's there's nothing in the record about my point is she was cut off september first but she's doing the same position can't go back to her job on hold candles if she were in she's not i mean wouldn't she get make moves well but fact that the commission didn't violate the law so if even if we throw out dr else's opinion as as you're suggesting let's let's take that out of the mix entirely there's still enough in the record to point to that and i'm not and i'm my date of september  physician sat as well i really doubt that the m r i scan to show anything positive everybody agrees there's nothing objective so let's take losses opinion now let's look at what's last and we have a treating physician who agrees there's nothing objective lee there are so there's nothing really to treat all of that treatment if you even can even call it treatment because she's going back for a day to day i'm sorry not to interrupt you we have all of that was exactly the same at the time of the original commission decision there was no time if you look at the medical at that time they're still really nothing there there's nothing objective there's again no treatments really being offered i mean she goes back to the doctor for our notes so there's nothing that's changing her underlying september one of two thousand and four and if you don't have another question i would ask you to affirm thank you if anybody has stated that leo to hold her rel it improved or gotten better i would have no argument to present to this honorable court but the reality is nobody said that she says there is no change in the opinion and there is no change in the condition so if we go back to our snapshot at the time of the trial from the prior decision petitioners condition has not improved since that time i disagree saying that there should have been at max a medical improvement two thousand and seven comprehensive pain management program was recommended by two doctors at the rehabilitation institute of chicago that was never done well  otherwise i proved that she was temporarily totally temporarily totally disabled as of the date of trial and we're going to find that day that's our job i'm not going to tell you your job you're on  commission panel said and is to insist on a vocational assessment i think both parties were justified except in the fact that the city of chicago paid benefits to my client for a number of years whether than doing