he made the it please the court my name is tracy jones i represent the petitioner is christine buyer in this matter in order for the appellant to succeed in convincing you that the manifest way the evidence shows that her condition building at sea five sixty six seven was not caused by aggravated or celebrated by the against it on january twentieth two thousand and four she points to two different things first what she calls an intervening events her farm worker work on her husband's farm and two of the opinion a doctor whites with regards to the farm work this is simply a red herring thrown at you two can use the original issue or the main issue in this case buyer testified that she had been doing farm work throwing bales of hay helping her husband now for years before the since she never had any problems in our cervical spine never had symptoms never needed medical treatment despite this she had been doing this for years after the injury she continued to do it but it didn't worsen her condition what worsened her condition was getting hit in the face by a dodge ball at work on january twenty second two thousand and four the appellant wants you to believe that this is an intervening event this far more but they have no medical opinion to support it and without a medical doctor a piny that the farm work was an intervening event they did not sustain their burden and showing it's an intervening  absolutely in this case it's very clear prior to january twentieth to two thousand and four she had degenerative disc disease it's clear from the x rays that that existed what's also clear from the evidence she never had treatment for it and she never had my cisco is the case that discusses this particular issue the appellant in their great attempted to distinguish cisco attempted to show you that this case is no lies like cisco but the only thing they pointed to that's being different isn't cisco the opinion is a gross system sorry the opinion of the treating physician was adopted over the opinion of the i am a doctor they did not point out to you that there was any factual difference between the injury and the preexisting condition of the petitioner in that case versus the one in this case why because there is no difference she had a preexisting asymptomatic condition in her cervical that she must have had symptoms and her cervical spine based on the findings he noted on the x ray in the m r i and there's no evidence to support dr weiss the speculation liability and the only workers not been based on imagination speculation or conjecture yet that's what they want you to do they want you to rely on dr rice's opinion which is based on speculation and speculation of well off show the herniated disc when she was initially i didn't really have it done in january twenty third two thousand and four i think although council may have thought that it should have revealed that medical doctors will tell you that it did it that issue was not addressed by d they have no opinion from dr weiss saying that if it did exist on january twenty third it would have shown up in the x ray doctor right here and didn't testify that way dr pearson's record stone indicate that all the evidence points to the contrary i think in this matter your honour's be a pal and cannot show you that the manifest weight of the evidence mandates or compels a different outcome than now reached by the commission in the circuit court i respectfully request that you  injury i think that there's a lot of evidence in the record that points to the fact that in fact it could potentially cause this injury first mediately after the accident  misfire treated with premier chiropractor she went there the day after the incident occurred and she continued to go there for two months following the accident when she left from your chiropractor make specific notes handwritten by the chiropractors at  that stated that christine was not compliant with their instructions to stop performing farmwork next we have dr reardon who testified that hav physical labor on the farm is in fact a factor in developing a cervical condition mr dr reardon also stated that heavy farm work is going to decrease any improvement or results that christine buyer sees in her treatment for her condition of being furthermore dr weiss states that having farmwork is going to affect one's ability to be able to recover from an injury and furthermore as i had stated before i believe that dr rice's testimony that  suffered only minor soft tissue strain in her neck and back is supported by the fact that she was in fact doing this arm work the day or two after the accident next i would like to address  insists bro the petitioner and the employer had two completely different doctors and says oh the petitioner had a good employees treating physician testified for them on their behalf at trial insist probate employer had a hired gun testify for them at trial if you read says bro i believe that the court specifically evidence is in favor of the testimony of the petitioners doctor and the employer was unable to meet its burden i think but that is not at all what we have here in this case we have a petitioner who has the medical testimony of hired medical expert on the employer's side we have the same thing we have to hire testimony of a medical expert but as i stated before i believe that that the employer did not meet the burden of showing that the manifest weight of the apennines was in favor of the employer and they specifically state and says bro that the doctor that was testifying that it should it says both should not be used as a mere case because there are factors in this case which distinguish it from the the fact pattern in says