was part of the springfield park district and the issues we have for you today are causing connection entitlement ongoing medical prison section a temporary total disability benefits and the nature and commission i need to also convince you that the opposite conclusion here is clearly the proper results and in this instance everything comes down to the causal connection union it's the workers compensation commission rendered a decision that said that as of the day in trials the current state of ill being was not related to the exposure accident or may th two thousand and thirteen in specific we noted that no doctor testified that there was  his examination of the claim with three and a half months after the work accident what current opinion is there regarding the current condition of the claimant is there anything from today regarding the current condition to her testified that the condition would relate it and in his report she wrote that it was unequivocal e related that she had this reactive airway just function syndrome and when questioned at his deposition which took place and dr crabtree's opinion is that her condition was unlikely to reverse and that she also had this condition and he said it's not usually a permanent process in his deposition but that it was unlikely to reverse for her and that she would need to take medications possibly for life if they were allowed to work but i think over simplifying crabtree is pinions crabtree had some major problems with the credibility of the claim didn't  absolutely suspected that she was smoking when she said that she wasn't there but also said that we're not all consistent with the clinical exam in the testing is he even went so far one point to say that he couldn't tell whether claimant had an acute disease or if she actually does not want to work well that sounds like a major credibility problem absolutely and credibility is certainly something that the commission should have and did determine  and seventy five months prior to the trial also i believe had to be related i believe she has these conditions i believe it's the related so was the question raised to him currently do you currently believe that this minute it with that specificity of language well no i suppose not but when he was asked what is the current state it will be and is it related he said yes he said it was related in that and that was  didn't he say that the claimant subjective complaints were not supported by the objective findings did me say that he said that and so what does that mean that she was laying it on a little steps commission i think took it a little bit for that they did it but they also ignored the objective tests and the opinions based upon those objectives tatts defines no causal relationship when both met i don't know how and why it's not so she saw a doctor i think on a one time occasion in two thousand and fifteen and we don't have it unfortunately what i would suggest is that there is period of time where this respondents this this defendant's took the position that she should be using public games and that created difficulty of her to receive treatment that's that's how best i can explain why she wasn't active in treatment for those years so did either of the experts in their depositions indicate that this was a permanent condition that they use that word if and again we're talking about language right if the doctors say that she needs to get a life long medication and that she needs and that was dr crabtree and that she needs to be in control of her environments i would experts say that she has a permanent response or a for induction what you just mentioned is what you're basing that statement on the doctor crabtree indicated that she needs to be on medication for her lifetime it was inappropriate for her so i suggested the commissioner the circuit court into this court that that's the period of t v that should have been awarded based upon dr two years opinion about what was st what was not safe for her to do in terms of work and then the th prong of my argument the th element of our appeal is that the commission undervalued the permanent partial disability afternoon they please the court counsel kennedy and i represent the springfield park district the only workers compensation commission correctly decided all issues and there's more than enough evidence to support their unanimous decision it should be in a permanent incident energy as you pointed out at the heart of that decision is causation and the commission unanimous unanimously found that  future lacked credibility and to question her motives what is consistent is the testimony in medical records of dr crabtree who routinely questioned the crabtree questioning that we've got st of all the social network entries from tuition are an example of this is early on which he's treating with dr cranford three and telling dr crabtree that she's unable to work and she can act when and where because of the triggers there's an entry where she's in st louis at a rams game despite these alleged triggers that prevent her from or being consistently throughout  to social network documents that she's basically living a normal life this is consistent with what is seen on the surveillance video so the commission looked at the opinion of  be revealed in testing that she was so the commission looked at the all this evidence and indicated that what was consistent with dr crabtree's opinions what was found in the social network the surveillance and then it commission noted when arbitrator lindsay heard this case which lasted about an hour and a half she noted that there was no triggers that were bothering produced during her testimony and i can answer your question during his and that one of the ones will heal i think he indicated in months or a year was crib three asked whether the condition was causally related to or in washington chemicals in did that reactive airway disease syndrome and the exposure at work correct i think what what the commission found to be significant was dr crabtree's testimony that this condition is not permit when he last saw her he had no signs of it the x rays documented the findings of it his physical examination documented new findings of it in the people who study demonstrated no findings of that subsequently petition in those three years where she's treating for other conditions in a pulmonary complaint are negative the commission correctly found that months before trial she she goes to dr moline a and notice that she's having conditions  even dothan lena notes she says and this is related to the exposure this is despite her strong smoking history he diagnosed as her with bronchitis which dr crabtree testified was no longer related to to her exposure that she did not have chronic bronchitis any detest the moment testify that smoking is the number one cause of bronchitis so in addition to those three years of gaps in treatment that's when we see the social and network entries we see the surveillance also supporting the notion the commission found that you know she was a victim to manic during that time think it's the commission's function to assess print ability if commissions function to look at the for medical providers in and decide which ones most believable based on the entirety of the evidence the commission did their job competing medical opinions deference those to the commission but i would suggest that there are there are no competing medical opinions or their goals in agreement with the condition and that it's related and again while neither said permanent the way justice harris asked the question of me each of them indicated an i'm going situation that is in need of medication and potential and i have a daughter with  severe tree not allergy and she carries an epi pen everywhere she go and she's never had an incident other than the st one but that doesn't mean she has never condition and it doesn't mean that something can't happen to her where she has a potentially life threatening events