not put into evidence and we don't know what it showed there was also the arbitrator and thus the commission also relied on the petitioners testimony at trial that he testified he initially did not assists the vendor with moving the barrel of iodine because he did not think that he could because of his back issues both the petitioner and the respondents witness testified that they were well aware of mr marshall's prior back issues they both said testified that he there were things that he did not do during the time frame that he worked for the respondent because of his back significant treatment for his low back between his surgery of twenty four and his action correct but she also noted the medical records she went through them specifically as to which what bindings were given at each office visit and i i want to say they were like the leaven visits and i could be wrong on that number of the top of my head but she did go through those specifically and so it wasn't as if the commission ignored the evidence that was there regarding whether there was or was not prior treatment and the arbitrator also in the firm by the commission specifically indicated that it given the facts in this case a chain of events theory was not enough to find cause ation in this case she did specifically address that in her decision as well the petitioner focuses on bilateral foot none the numbness and the reference to it in the record and indicates that it was relied on in some way by the commission and the by the arbitrator in the commission i would respectfully disagree with that it is mentioned but it no point in my reading of the decisions did the commission ever say because this was noted therefore this medical condition exists they noted it in terms of the complaints were there and there was no indication or testimony from dr fine as to why or how that played into his cause ation opinion there was an intelligent gate referenced in dr fons history in the notes from his nurse not in his written report and there was the twenty three month history a bilateral foot numbness in the world health records but neither of those factors was specifically addressed by dr fine as to why the need for surgery is related to the work accident as it was found by the commission and in the accident part and not to the price the prior and there's argument in the petitioners brief that the commission was playing doctor basically and i don't read that i don't see that they simply mention the issues and go to the and address the credibility of those issues in terms of it's out there but it wasn't addressed the same with dr wilson being mentioned the commission didn't say we find that dr wilson would have been favorable to the respondent or favorable to the petition it's simply mentioned that dr wilson name is out there as a trader in the prior surgery in two thousand and four but no conclusion is drawn other than that other than to say we were kind of curious as to what dr wilson would have said but they didn't make correct and that was and that was another point that the arbitrator brought up which was in the commission which was dr foreign had to histories given to him the accident and then the general toll of doing farmwork and that was not addressed either and that is in my opinion the problem with the commission's decision with the with judge cavernous decision and if you read judge cavernous decision he totally and absolutely indicates what his interpretation of the evidence is he doesn't specific he doesn't say the evidence doesn't support this he says that the testimony  is credible and reviewed it you know we've in care when he said i'm well i don't like to discount any judge your honor so from that standpoint yes but in this case here i understand your point and no we really don't we really are looking at the original commission decision but that's kind of my point is that he exceeded his authority if you will in not looking at the commission's decision and addressing that as opposed to interpret not sustain his burden of proof in other words the arbitrator in the commission did not place everything on dr fine they basically said this was not preceded all the evidence was not out there and i'm out of time so we're about not the credibility of the facts it's a credibility about facts versus things not in the record the the facts in the form of evidence in this case versus a fabrication made by  an arbitrator a licensed neurosurgeon testify after being told what the accident was which is a corny nine year old farm hand lifting helping lift a fifty five gallon drum of iodine hurt his back that my son's neurosurgeon said he believed that that was the cause or aberration of this of mr marshall's injury there is no doctor matter of course typically will ask cause or aggravate in a matter just as a matter of asking the question of deposition but there are completely different things yes that's true and i don't i do not believe there is any clear indication of pathology he in the record at five plus one that was existing at the time of this accident if you look at dr fons notes his prior surgery i believe and doctor found references that all three for which is a different part of  kraft foods opinion while the court does say that they're not bound by the the they don't want to follow the opinion of the only treating physician in other words the types of begun for ans that were in kraft foods wasn't enough to overcome that opinion in that particular case and so with regards to the you know the influence of these prior records on the records to dr wilson dr fallon looked at those records there in his file that he discusses them in his deposition it's in the record at our one hundred and seventy six not only did dr todd have a chance to look at those records counsel had an opportunity to look at them when she looked at his file they're not in the record because no one testified they were relevant to the current condition of this patient we simply don't offer any evidence records are irrelevant but the arbitrator which is the whole consistent pattern in this case goes out there and says perhaps there's something else out there that we don't know well that's not the standard it's the manifest weight of the evidence it's not the manifest weight of all potential things that might a possibly be or offer in another scenario it's the manifest weight of the evidence before the commission the evidence before the courts not we could all sit here and i don't think anyone has ever  gotten to an appeal much less to put court level and thought well i guess i probably or i wish i would have secured this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence but i don't get to argue those things i only get to argue what's in the record if you don't you how do you respond to the that opinion is written arbitrator lenzie is using some vague references to modern backpacking in rural health records dr fine when he issued his causation opinion was fully aware that this gentleman hurt his back lifting a fifty five gallon drum and if you look at those references and quote and the things are critical injuries i'm looking at in the health records those are all health records our family doctors that occasionally prescribe over the counter our cofa and for occasional back pain for forty nine year old farming that is hardly indicative of a serious ongoing medical condition and maybe most directly if you look at arbitrator lindsay's opinion she highlights the idea of this bilateral foot numbness as indicative of a five s one ridiculous apathy while now we jumped from merely saying that he may have had a prior back problem to saying this but numbness is also attributable to this back injury and when you come back to the whole point of of most parks argument on kraft foods the commission pathology is just medically wrong so now you have the idea of well the commission has certain leeway to say things for instance i have a bad about a mistress on my with me and i have a new injury to my west knee that's not necessarily a leap to jump there but to say foot numbness which has many causes could have many different issues and poor and i arbitrator with no doctor in the records saying the m r i shows the disc protrusion which correlates to nerve root patient at a specific area and what the family doctor was saying that's what he's talking about none of that's on the record she takes bilateral  and i don't know of how i asked r t this because i didn't get to cross examine arbitrator linsey on the fact that her assumption is anatomically and medically incorrect and so that's the question for the court i don't know what you're vested with i google by whether or not in the us and this is not one of the top issues that comes up how does a court do that i think it comes back to my st statement is the manifest weight of the preexisting medical condition a circuit court we would have to have medical testimony to that effect to that effect and i think allowing a ministry of logic to make a leap of something in a completely different body part is related to this injury overriding a neurosurgeon that that's just too far from it i understand the commission is supposed to be a summary proceeding we don't want these things we want them to be as simple as possible but for treating their own surgeon to be overwritten by some type pasting together of various opinions is a is a little bit much especially when no other doctor correlates  those things so what arbitrator lenzie in the commission do is they take dr wilson's records that were reviewed and considered by the treating physician but not in the record some vague references from the family doctor none of which by the would and it's too much to overcome and if you look you know back it sorenson you know one of the issues was there were lots of doctors in sorenson which is kind of tied that cross food case and that the respondent relies on there are several other doctors qualified they render surgical opinions that really didn't come through for the petitioner so you doctor after doctor what we're looking at is some vague references by rule health family doctors and then try to use those to overcome a neurosurgeon and i think especially with the way the pendulum is swinging now with with work come up where we get new arbitrators or route three years the standards that are held by an evidence remasters need apply to work comp where these cases are cream we can they don't consider the fact that the courts of clarified to dispute medical consultation once i establish it with medical testimony that you can't just reference some family doctor notes and undo a neurosurgeon's opinion especially when you're starting to use parts  parts away from that actual injury right the foot and what i think what i would like and the way i've done this since i got this decision is arbitrary lindsay's opinion which is only about a page and a half when it comes to cars ation is not based upon the evidence and the standard is the manifest weight of the evidence is based upon information not in the file so if you take  opinions that really don't pertain or would be admissible to a neurosurgical condition of the spine her decision doesn't exist it just doesn't exist when you take out the things that she say well i would have liked to known this i would have liked to s he bases his sole causation and and injury on the fact that mr marshall reported that he injured himself moving that thirty five gallon drum correct yes and while we have to accept the fact that the court found an accident we can look into dr finance reasoning is the treatment  causation based on the fact that there was everyone else in the record deny that the guy moved the barrel and if so if the if the information is wrong to the doctor while we have to accept there was an accident we have to accept his causation determination if we determine that the information he had was wrong  fun you know we do all of these cases where the guy goes innocent i had no car back problems mr marshall one as far as taking his records from a prior doctor in another state and letting him look at the surgical reports marshall on march th two thousand and fourteen he did state he was injured while working on the farm so basically he was going to file a work comp claim why she didn't put that no no i don't know that doctor injuries yet come back or p arbitrator's decision she makes no medical conclusions she just says she notes that acts on march th he gave a very specific history of numbness in a speech for the previous three months this would predate the accident and the footnote simply says a three month history of foot numbness which would have predated the accident she doesn't say therefore there is nothing except that statement of fact and as i read it she is saying this fact exist based on the medical records what does it mean the petitioner failed to address that the same thing when she talks about the history given to dr fine of two sources of his back pain again there's two sources that wasn't addressed what does that mean the same thing with fact the reference to dr wilson's records she doesn't say she just says finally the arbitrator notes petitioners reference to treatment for his back with dr wilson no records or testimony regarding dr wilson was provided that's all she says she doesn't draw any conclusion as to what that would have been and the fact that i had those records in my hand is completely irrelevant it's not my burden of proof if that needs to be explained as to the prior and whether there was an aggravation or what it meant not my problem no no offense the issue clearly relevant to causation and to dr francis credibility and what he testified to it was the same level and that to me is what the commission is saying is we didn't have enough information here there's more unanswered questions than there are answer questions and that is the reason that they did not find dr hans testimony and opinion on condition credible and that is their purview to do that even if that is the only testimony in the record with respect to vote can void can that's not a comp case that's a negligence case and as mr denny indicated he would like for that standard to be the same but as the last chance to day work camp is its own into t if you will and i practicing in missouri i love the fact that you guys are the work comp appellate panel that i can't tell you how nice that is to argue two justices who understand the workhouses and as opposed to you missouri where i have to argue to the justices to do everything and extend to kate them although at this point we do have some comp justices  so basically my position is the commission got it right when they said dr fons testimony was not complete in that the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of proof and present all the evidence that would have given dr fons opinion the basis to be believed by the commission so i would ask that this court affirm the original decision of the commission as we've done and she basically decided dr calvinists i'm sorry judge cavernous opinion doesn't count and i say that lightly i mean i don't say that lightly and i do say it time in cheek so i would ask for an affirmation of the commission's original decision