after that negative pm she said yes you're still have the same diagnosis and you need surgery there is no intervening accident here that would have cut off the causal chain there's no other causative factor you don't simply and it suddenly goes away and then resurface again and the energy is is not completely reliable test we don't know what happened why there was this negative p m g but with or the commission say somehow her condition have buckle tunnel or some other problem with one hand or we have a problem with the knee and start favoring the line and start the healing process with the other so if anything that says to me she's got a problem right hand then she's now trying to avoid using that and that's why she may or may not have i'm saying i don't i'm not sure they know what they're saying they're still saying that she they found causal connection there were four doctors who identified with that condition was somehow she has a negative p m g and yet this is august of two thousand and eight november of two thousand and she's seeing another doctor hansard who says you still have the same condition and you still need surgery for it so they found it but not after august twentieth two thousand and nine read out of a cut it off as of that day and i don't see why there there isn't any it's not like she had me injury and then had another the injury somewhere along the way that would break the causal chain that to me that doesn't make sense which is why the circuit court judge wanted to send this case back to have a hearing on this issue i think question finding this process in action up to a certain point and now she has another problem where she somehow magically has another situation maybe where she needs surgery for the same condition in surgery for which some other doctor or doctor said that she had a problem now a fifth one said she had a problem and the position itself if we're saying yes the commission is found that the risc os action but the commission is cut  august twenty have two thousand this was the do of a second normal she in fact we would argue that it would not have been against the manifest we have the evidence for the commission to have come off the causation as early as six months prior in january two thousand and eight the date of a first completely normal e g in fact the month after that in february of two thousand and eight the second doctor so what doctor found normally m g a month later a completely different doctor returned ms wyatt to work with no it noted that over time mrs wyatt subjective complaints of pain expanded at the same time the objective medical evidence supporting those subjective complaints narrowed and found that as her as her completes its continued to expand in the absence of any objective medical findings it made her testimony less credible and really what the what  followed by a month later this by being returned to work on restricted i completely separate position that position said there's nothing there's no medical evidence supporting her subjective complaints a month later a third doctor returns messiah to work without any restrictions so we have three doctors in a three month period finding nothing wrong with her and so then fast forward to august two thousand and eight three just so it's not until this august twentieth state of the commission says ok we'll go ahead and cut off causation so there's really there's really no argument here that there is it was against any manifest weight of the caused by something unrelated to work there was no evidence on the other side you write well one thing the counsel a minute or two to report was that she did have a car accident in june two thousand and eight just two months prior to thousand and eight was asian cocktail is that her own expert witness dr doumani n made the same diagnosis that som but not all of the doctors need prior to two and ultimately the commission found when it weighed the evidence it found the lack of medical objective evidence supporting her subjective complaints of pain more credible than dr de money and said kenyon the court just didn't find for that of the commission merely because a different inference can be drawn and we all know that that is not appropriate under the standard of review so and we can go ahead take a look at issue of this the trial for it was sort of considering remanding the case and media it could have under certain circumstances and because it could have it should have completely ignoring the fact that the trial court affirmed that commission's decision in all in all