thousand for lifting a one hundred eight pound bale of steel strapping the causation opinion which caused the commission to uphold the arbitrary decision find there was no causal relationship to his not going back in vision at the time of an unfounded opinion it's an uninformed opinion and sure it's a terrible opinion i do have to give credit to doctors will be at deposition he was very honest about the shortcomings of his report he found that our client was it and then mine as of december thirty first two thousand and four and when asked division he said it was a date that he chose because he felt it was appropriate despite the fact that our client had ongoing treatment after that for many years doctors o b admitted that he was missing three years of records which form the basis a position he did admit that he didn't have the nine hundred ninety three m r i he never seen it and there was nothing to compare it to this form the basis of his cause opinion this is the opinion that the commission in large part relied upon in denying our client benefits and we do feel that it meets the heavy burden of manifest way we'd like to hear whether the commission's decision finding that our petitioner failed to prove his call the relationship between the accident and his condition of ill being at the time of trial was against the m evidence now in the side we do have doctors always opinion which i'll get to in greater detail it's discrediting a deposition but at this side we have two exams which we're really paan by both the respondent and the petitioner with d ed goldberg who teaches at the world renowned rush teaching facility is a back specialist and on two occasions with no reservation found in our client's condition in two thousand and seven and then his ongoing condition in two thousand and nine was really his original volunteer firefighter climbing up and down ladders holly wrote during this entire a living your period there was no miss time for back pain there was no medical treatment for back pain there is nothing in the records that supports any ongoing difficulty after his release in will tell you that my client surgery was never needed never mentioned until it was recommended by the agreed upon examiner dr goldberg in two thousand and nine contrary to that position we have in the record at c three fifty five dr ro who he was sent to for a surgical evaluation in february of two thousand and five stating in the event that he has a recurrent ridiculous he might be a candidate for some type of decompressive procedure he was sent there by his pain management physician after conservative therapy failed following that dr gall his pain management physician had said i think you may be and i think you may indeed be eligible for surgery sometime that's it see three seven one dr roche following this in april of two thousand and five said that the patient should prohibit when he heavy weight lifting as long as he is not for have was his corrective surgically he may be able to lift thirty to forty pounds on a regular basis however that would be up to the surgical team to recommend further weight lifting after surgery and that's it see three seventy three reason i'm trying to pay close attention to these dates this is february two thousand and five april two thousand and five later in april two thousand and five these are all dates that respondents i mean doctors o b had said that our patient was no longer seeking treatment and he was adam and i and he didn't even have these records for his review additionally he didn't have the records showing that from that april twenty seventh two thousand and five period our calling underwent a total of seventeen epidural injections most of these to be administered by dr dahlberg his pain management doctor and that in every visit with his family doctor dr peterson he complained of the ongoing lower back pain why couldn't the commission reliance all be versus gold judges our position that it was so against the manifest weight of all the other evidence to go with doctors always opinion especially given the fact that he admitted during deposition that his no  change from the ninety three to the two thousand and four m r i was not informed by any m r i to compare him to especially considering the fact that he admitted at a time of deposition that he was missing three years of medical records to include all of the injections performed by opinion i also feel that the commission relied upon that as their sole basis for disputing causation additionally making a number of internal errors in the arbitrator's decision which was affirmed by the commission they went with doctors always opinion but then went on to award medical treatment after the date that they said causation entered the arbitrators order medical was to be paid through december first two thousand and nine yet somehow at the time of our trial causation had ended back in two thousand and four when doctors only said it had now respond to counsel and says this is a windfall to our client and he should be happy that the arbitrator mistakenly awarded him more medical and he himself had said he was entitled to from our position it's not second later provided a rationale for that seeming inconsistency not that we can find your honor a second error within the opinion because the arbitrator stated that dr ro the initial surgical surgical examiner indicated that petitioner was not a surgical candidate and if you go to the record the opposite of that is true dr ruth didn't it kate that he would be a surgical candidate if is ridiculous but the did not go away dr also said nothing the petitioner did not require surgery and intervention would not be due to a clinical exam in his obesity both of these things the opposite is true if you consult the record doctor to make assuming that it's true and i think you know some of what you've said well we're going to bring the record a lack of analysis of the arbitrators flawed decision and what we're asking is for this court to review it in light of all the evidence and then our position would be that the manifest weight of the evidence should lead to a different conclusion the one sole on conflicting not internally illogical piece of evidence that the respondent has is the doctor's only report that does say causation is not related this gentleman needed to lose weight this was a degenerative condition despite the fact that he had eleven years with no medical treatment commission had in a holding arbitrator andrus his opinion do lead one to believe that there is a manifest way argument it could be made to elaborate further on my colleagues medical history after he saw thousand and five he's had his first epidural injection to be followed by sixteen more between two thousand and five and when he was seen by doctors helping none of these records available for doctors help his consideration the continue driving with dr dollar was due to his was a candidate for surgery writing in his final no i do believe the his condition of ill beings from the accident of two thousand and four he was treated appropriately during the course of the years but his symptoms have then progressive he has had no intervening trauma this is a doctor at a teaching facility who is not typically dr who is agreed upon by both counsel coming up with the opinion that there is a causal relationship and in addition to that you the benefit of all the records he would he had three additional years of driven the doctors tell me either did not reweigh the evidence that was presented to the commission this can be done without going against standard of review the exact arguments that are made today or made to the commission and the commission reject the only question here should be whether the findings made by the commission are supported by evidence and the answer is emphatically yes the commission's decision may not be perfect but it is supported by the evidence there are six temporary basis is that the commission gi information and he found it a pain in the current condition of the petitioner was from a degenerative condition aggravated by his obesity and further this argument this exact same argument that doctors know he was somewhat aware of everything going discretion thank you and agree with one aspect of dr selby and not with another and i think that's what was done here and i said that the commission had numerous other bases for their decision including records even see the petitioner because he said that he wasn't a surgical candidate dr ro in february two thousand i said that further nonstarter carol warranted i get the petitioner saying that some of these doctors said that he might need this surgery in the get worse and this is why doctors always also testified to also another basis that he commission walked out was the fact that there was no train my from september of two thousand and seven through may of two thousand  it was during this period in november of two thousand and seven that the petitioner laughed and went to a new job because almost two years after he went to his new job he started after goldberg again and i think that that that was also a basis for the co obesity is episodic complaints are consistent with the natural history of degenerative condition and the treatment was related to this you recommend it like dr l or weight loss and hold out exercises again like dr l there recommended weight incomplete or incorrect information it is true that dr dobie did have and consult dr goldberg's report however he did not have the records of dr holder had to shift specifically detailing the continued lower back when he was asked during deposition whether our client had been on ongoing restrictions this whole time he said that he was not aware of but he is still on dr roche's ongoing twenty pound weight lifting restriction as of his time of exam with doctors helping doctors he did not have these records his opinion was of controlling witness case that coupled with the additional inconsistency used by the arbitrator and affirmed by the commission show this is a confused decision and that they did maybe a blend saying we don't think selby's opinion is perfect we're going to give you some of the medical care but we would submit is that doctor and goldberg's opinion should have been given controlling weight that the treatment we had requested should have been approved and i just like to underlin and other items as a warehouse worker served as a volunteer firefighter he heard is back at work the accident is understated he had continuous ongoing care from the time of the accident to the time of trial none of this is disputed what is disputed by