fifty weeks and medical bills in excess of one hundred ten thousand gallons and if this case i know the commish the court remembered it but the commission the basis of the court's opinion is the commission could not revisit the issue of the terminal date of temporary pole compensation nor did the commission according to the circuit court have discretion to rule on the medical bills for the fusion surgery at northwestern hospital which exceeded one hundred thousand down and the argument the eleventh hour argument presented by the defendant in this case really moves their contention that finding a prominent c notwithstanding that this was heard under nineteen b is appropriate saying that the and remain in the commission  make decisions till the end of all the resolution of an effect for legal issues that your position the judge white's decision a farm the limitation of temporary total disability compensation medical is adjudicated by a judge why distribute it didn't appeal that order there for those two elements that are now i only only issue is we can understand this will proceed easily if the court wants to do that i personally think it's a waste of time because the two major elements that the judge are farmers are huge elements that involve hundreds of thousands of dollars and the cases that were cited by the i'm aware of those cases and i'm aware that this court has discretion as to how you handle the because you're not supposed to say i met somebody and i just say procedurally well you may see it on the website in the future so i do understand it's a question of law i didn't meet him and to give the impression that it's discretionary but when stand for that proposition are in my reply i didn't raise that issue that issue was first raised by the defendant and in their brief to this court they didn't file a motion to dismiss and of course they  the court should be aware that there's a cross appeal on file in this case and if you grant their relief i assume they believe that you have to dismiss the cross appeal as well which does bring us to the issue of the appropriateness be hearing as an appendix to our brief so the five permanent seat was was totally inappropriate which brings us to the reversal of the arbitrator by the commission and whether or not its final decision on t t d and medical i against the manifest weight of the evidence in this case the arbitrator deny papen sation entirely on the premise that the injury did not cause the ba that part of the reason for the lack of causation is a fact that the petitioner was treated by his family doctor before the chiropractor who started his treatment dr baf those records were produced and somehow that's yes ma'am so why this keeps coming up is unclear to me but i want to make it clear to this court all the records were presented to the arbitrator the first demo only doctor at the only medical that the petitioner saw was bob and somehow the suggestion that we were that he the petitioner was hiding something and that calls into question his credibility is totally in my opinion eroei it's basically this is a young man he's a thirty six year old titian or he had an undisputed low back injury where he slipped and fell on icy conditions in the tractor trailer of the truck where he was making deliveries he had had two prior i had a prior no back injury which was not supported by the record but the oddly the odd thing about his priors is his low back was examined on both of those occasions two years before this accident and the doctors dr horn pads and doctors l b found his low bag was completely normal and there were no abnormalities and as of march fourth there were what the brief of the defendant says he was on light duty from tuesday until saturday and you should look at page one thirty four of the wrecker he went to doctor to buy he was treated was simply a bad string her examination was before referral to an orthopedic surgeon mr by who had not seen michael hot at the time of this examination it was before five l five s one and lead dr hock on october thirty two thousand and three to prescribe our fusion surgery dr wayne or could not find i'm a necessity for the surgery she did not have the test the test didn't exist and dr hocking testified extensively that a post disk a graphic c t scan is the most sensitive radiological has for determining an annular tear sometime in april of zero four but we never we didn't we initiated the hearing eventually but by the time we approached august it was felt that we might as well take dr hoxton evidence deposition so we would have his opinion in the record on the need for the surgery oddly enough the workers compensation commission read her risk they are a traitor they found a causal connection but notwithstanding their finding a possible connection they denied further t t t after august twenty two thousand and three and i cited to this court the true recent supreme court opinions in in wade and the retirement board of the city of chicago the existence of the one report contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence does not does not protect the the the proper of that exhibit from reversal  and the case of waiting was a much stronger case than this one in way police officer wade had two prior surgeries and a month before he was found disable he was getting treatment for his knee in this case mr never had a problem with his low back was examined twice before the injury and his back was found to be normal so the real source in his case didn't you have competing medical opinions there's only one opinion that would support the the respondent that's acknowledge that that is in fact the case gives me no pleasure to suggest that this court doesn't have jurisdiction to address that but i think as an officer of the court it is not patient line an obligation certainly a reviewing panel to examine its own jurisdiction and i think of this court therefore not appealed in fact none of the cases that the petitioner cites to the contrary proposition suggest anything different what those cases say in fact that of the three cases all of them acknowledge that there are situations where there might be an appealable order in those circumstances but only if what is left to be decided in the commission is something purely a matter of calculation or something that is on the speeded in fact two of those cases found there wasn't a jurisdiction and the third found that  the supreme court elected to exercise jurisdiction only because there was a matter of calculation involving one room so when there is something that no one can reasonably argue about to be decided on remand then the court can exercise the order to be appealed because it was substantial enough that there was still enough to be decided in and resolved in litigated in the commission that what was that what had been decided so far was not appeal now the fact that there are some affirm that decision because they are not against manifest with the evidence they are consistent in fact with the evidence that the petitioners injury and current injury is something that is not causally connected to the action he claims is  d the finding of causation has been made because of the causal connection that was located in the by the arbitrator was the connection between or by the commission i'm sorry was between the accident and the injuries that had been suffered up to the point of the independent medical examination on august twenty of the two thousand and three the dr wiener dr julie wainer was the doctor could who conducted the i am me on that date and she determined that the petitioner's injuries were all and yet that preexisting condition a progressive condition a condition that all the experts acknowledge is something that is progressive and continuing intense due to build over time  to something he had before by august twentieth two thousand and three she found he had reached the maximum medical improvement connected with his injuries from the accident and that is a finding that is entitle to great amount of deference certainly the  lower bodies found it to be compelling found to be more compelling in fact than the other experts who testified on behalf of additional it's important also to recognize that even those other experts lend lends credence to dr winner's opinion dr hackett the one on which the fish replaces most reliance acknowledged that it's possible and likely and i'm quoting him it's possible and likely that spine surgeons may have a difference of opinion with regard to about such things that is a far cry from the standard that is required for reversal in this case manifest would have you have it's a manifest where the evidence requires that the opposite conclusion must be clearly evident and dr hax acknowledgement that there is room for disagreement in these matters is a far cry from that and doesn't permit a reversal under that standard and moreover there was evidence in the record that the petitioner may have been magnifying his symptoms dr winter certainly thought so and said so in her report court should find in favor of his his client but that is not is poor its role as reviewing bodies for is to determine whether the decision made by judge white to affirm the commission's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence there is a substantial amount of evidence in this case to support that decision and regardless of what might be said in opposition to it what other evidence there might be out there the the finding that the lower bodies came to is consistent with  intensely to defeat a motion to dismiss i filed in another case earlier several years ago with this theory seem correct but i don't remember the facts because the case since many many years ago and i apologise to the court and i'm embarrassed it's the only comment i would make is that there's no question that mr by head degenerative disc disease but what led to his surgery was an annular tear and at the