went to the doctor on the initial visit august twenty ninth and also really left growing pains and i guess what comes down to this decision is the commission did not wait laughter growing pain with left  and that's really what we're looking at here this is a gentleman that had severe osteoarthritis in both his left and his right here when they took the x rays initially at the company clinic they x rayed his hips on that first visit both the left and the right and they both showed severe advanced osteoarthritis however he only had symptoms when they left him following the accident at work he never experienced any symptoms with respect to the r of growing pains is consistent with a complaint of left him three days later we have another call left it came complaining to the record who is identified on that second visit his left hand we also disagreed with burke was obviously twenty fourteen now this is a gentleman who's in symptomatic in the left him prior to the accident he had no prior injuries the left hip he had no prior medical treatment to speak on whatsoever fifteen years old but he said no tr that left him in fact he's working as a delivery driver truck driver now and trying to video but he is working with that friend that's where he's at in the back of the truck when he gets injured this is a handy physical job that he's doing so i treatment any symptoms any problems with the right side so darren walsh is ignoring the fact that we have the immediate onset of symptoms this is this approach case this is a classic exacerbation or an aggregation of an underlying preexisting only for the back the records bureau that there it was for the back in the left hip this is something that was brought on the onset of the symptoms can be easily found the trauma on the back of the truck one of the first mention in the medical records sought treatment on the twenty ninth complaining of the reading left growing pains the thirty first he complains of the left hip and as they say the search for physical therapy in the treatment records from thirty shows getting the treatment from the hip and the low back citations and i am not trying to nitpick his brief by any means but these two sentences are very very important and in fact his entire argument is based on these two sentences there on page ten of his brief does he cite to any medical records to support this assertion or toast no no no testimony there's nothing in the persons medical records that indicate that growing pain is classic symptoms  on the first visit occasional pain that radiated into the left prime reason but he said possibly it's consistent with a left like trauma possibly with a left hip trauma nowhere does dr walsh say that two thousand and eleven which is more than a week after the accident dr walsh opined that if this work accident where he slept and twisted it was so commission's failure to recognize the petition described the complaints as complaints of left him pain and find of the petitioner injury to his left hip is against the manifest weight of the evidence unquote again and that is merely an argument weil's the question for this court is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the commission instigation and specifically there is based on petitioners not of her records his own testimony and of course the testimony of dr wal was judge but if dr walsh points out if this slipping in the back of the truck had been so significant to change the anatomy of that osteoarthritis the symptoms would have been in media and they won been severe he did not have any complaints of left hip pain for eight days after the accident saying that a slope in the back of a truck  they had petitioners on testimony they evaluated the credibility already they found the opinions of dr walsh more credible than the  but he continued working for the next five the next four days until he went to the company clinic this is a fifteen year old to liberate truck driver just an air bridge guy not a lot of sophistication whatsoever i don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to think that his complaints to the left growing is consistent with by him problem because she got hung up on the fact that he did not complain of left him on that initial visit but three your approach well it seems to ignore the causal relationship or i should say the temporal relationship between the onset of symptoms and the trauma to that lack dr walsh initially thought this was just a twist of the he was corrected on cross no this was a twist of his left ear but he still stayed with opinion didn't he did he did but he asked yourself if it wasn't the trauma in the back of the truck to cause this to become symptomatic what was the inciting event the cause just a contributing factor and i think you're the relationship between the onset of the symptoms and the trauma there is a temporal really good just one of those as well specifically a kind and issue that it could have caused the aggravation yeah eight days later and if he had been injured on the date of the industrial accident then that particular case the pain would remain so walsh discounts the causal connection from the very beginning and the end then