no causal connection between the alleged injury and petitioners then current condition of guilty we have a long history of medical treatment which was noted in the commission decision going back to two thousand  fisher previously had an award for a cervical surgery and this curve in two thousand and one and actually prior to this award she in fact had a nother recommendation for surgery she continued to treat throughout two thousand and two two thousand and three two thousand and four several times in medical records it's again you know in the back she's a surgical candidate for cervical surgery she continued having injections during this period of time to get to complain of pain as well now we have a alleged date of injury of may sixth two thousand and four two weeks proximate two weeks prior to this date of injury april twenty third two thousand  twenty first record makes no mention of a work injury happening may sixth two thousand and four no aggravation no mention of a new injury second of all and perhaps even more importantly the record notes improvement conditions condition based on being jackson she had april twenty third now there's also complaints of lower back pain in this in this case commission erred when they found no causation that seems to be with us theory of what is a circuit court what went wrong there absolutely your honor we don't dispute that there may have been an accident but what we do dispute is the fact that there was an aggravation and is this court and we all know you not only need an accident but you need by by proponents of the evidence the fact that there was a cause a connection between the accident and petitioners current condition so we don't presume that because there was an accident they had to be some causal connection to the claims for a condition  the may sixth two thousand and four accident now we've got various mentions in the record of surgery recommendations with surgery throughout two thousand and one two three and four in fact dr maliki himself in the records that are part of the evidence in this case and as recent the time period sued him a sixty thousand for in ca april twenty third she was having injections for pain in march the record indicates that she recently ran out of her pain medications and her there is no finding a causal connection it's not the situation where they find they found causal connection and then brought and exceptions who basically deny benefits that's not the case here we never the commission never found cause a  we did that the respondent it not so my first point is really directed toward that where the court came in and said counsel you  did what you needed to do with regard to cicero to answer the question whether or not the preexisting problem was a clause of the woman's subsequent treatment we did that they did not and therefore the circuit court reversed the commission and decided and went back to the arbitrator it ruled for us  basis the credibility of this family and then you've got so look on the other side clearly saying the condition regarding her back complains were not related to any work injury ok you get in the course of saying that you know you have credibility issues to be determined within the privacy of the commission so you tell us a why the commission can't do that in believe zoellick over malik and secondly i'd like you to explain in doing so why it wasn't until first of all if you compare on this accident happened with the woman pushing the car she was recent to magic she was working without restrictions working full time she gets injured on the job and when you compare that to what happened it's this insist you had a gentleman that stepped off out of the cab of a truck the doctor insist on that his particular malady could have occurred  simply by stepping off a curb or walking on and on even surface so for starters aggravation and its aspiration of preexisting problems are special rate in m we know we're going to have the plaintiff knows that we have to go to the mat because these kinds of cases and the challenge frequently there's high medical costs when surgery comes about but the point is is that if you look at the condition that develops for example suppose you had a commissioner that was a diabetic and then he developed a shark on condition that could have it it doesn't take the what the what the commission did in in our case and on stroke they let me focus on my second because i knew that this would come and i knew that someone would say when that's a fast counsel doesn't the commission doesn't the juror an arbitrator have the right to disagree with specific make your reasons mr commission make your reasons specific make them legitimate make them legitimate if you're going or if you're going to be legitimate you don't significant i don't i don't i don't believe in this looking at this decision we're really talking about they see doctors all its more credible than knock him out no it doesn't say they don't say that evidence in here that clearly cuts against the claim that the commission noted there is no reference to that claim as a lower back complaint that any of the medical records anywhere any documents if filled january two thousand  in september two thousand and four so how is that not supportive of the commission's decision well first of all in the decision itself that the commission came down with they say that she did he testified that the nation care was primarily concentrated on it because that was her main problem and only after that was taken care of and the pain improved did we start start discussing treatment of her back and then further opined that she had an injury both to her neck  the little bag but to be fair the neck injury was very cute much more significant and then he talked about the fact that treatment and this is true i mean when you have a back and neck issues you're taken you're doing things conservatively you're taking anti inflammatory drugs and the treatment is the same are you going to penalize the petitioner because the doctor didn't make in his notes the fact that early on he thought that there was something that he didn't he didn't  on the subject of the back but in any event if you again if you look at this case closely you've got their doctor there their doctor and if you separate the two the two different melodies the back and  doctor comes in and says hey it could happen just by walking on and on even surface at work so will the significance of it is not the point the point is he said when you're down below where we are and you're trying these necessary stuff the opinions that's what trials are on the up and that's what we did and they didn't do it and that's why i really my judge when someone who's a very who's been on this who's substituting its opinion for the da you can you can you can reverse that kind of an argument should the commission substitute its opinion for dr no based on what the with the do that doesn't ask a question  if they're dispirited if they're disinterested if they don't show and want to give you reasons why something is more credible to me that's not the way things should exist and you're saying in the comm