found to be fully credible by the commission meaning the respondent threw everything but the kitchen sink at him and they said he was sleeping in the car they said he was but they sad but bit the injury a rose from a labor management spiel let's start with the fact that for fourteen years from nineteen eighty eight actually fifteen years to two thousand and three he had no problems with the company he was the best producer of lamps the highest producer there was until he did his all the supervisor said he had no problems with  he was getting kudo's they issued his coworkers came in and said that the company would post a list of people who were outstanding and russ was always at the top of the outstanding what changed he got in that you can't do this but it is significant it is significant then for rage for each deals with responses by things dining in depression secondary to the change of the patient's life which is a potential for him to lose his job the doctor goes on to indicate they had the claim his condition is attributable to disciplinary action and respond its management style the committee noted there is no indication abraham's office notes that the claimants condition of ill being was attributable to the work related shoulder injury so why can't the commission except the two changes in petitioner's life that his shoulder was injured when a sudden shoulder was injured in their response to him as an employee changes there are no other check what changes in his life that the commission point to of losing his job and the way the employer kindles his injury and taken care of his paperwork in which is related to him going back to work and being feeling themself like he was under pressure mentally are and when he says a no name sally and depression most likely secondary a change of patient's life that's the only change in the patient's life around or there is no other change their only two changes and  injuries that he's claiming is seeking compensation for the directed natural result of the shoulder to get what is any of this have to do with him while he comes first of all first of all  agreement it only had to do with him doing the impossible fifteen to twenty in fact the only reason they investigated them was because he wasn't doing they sent their guys out the phone because he was billion dollars and he doesn't play thousands of them why is he the big guy all he did was come to work he wanted to work against his doctor's advice trying to satisfy these people and what and what was his what was his benefit for more pressure compensation commission and he side workers comp benefits related to an alleged mental health condition is initial shoulder injury was accepted and benefits were paid in relationship to that file in that trial the workers compensation commission eventually rob it is mental health condition was not related to either of the two cases he had filed alleging shoulder injuries and obviously there are opposing tons of facts in this case and i'll highlight a few supporting it and the question is not a legal question it's a straight causal connection analysis of the sort that's been done all the time by the commission that's within their he received while the he worked until july and then he's one under medical treatment and had surgery he came back to work at full duty he worked throughout the end of march april and shoulder injuries and the alleged psychological issues absolutely the commission found it was not that connection right it wouldn't be based on the fact that there was no development  psychological symptoms at the time of the shoulder injury or following his recovery from the shoulder injury where it was a straight orthopedic case to which the medical records show he had an excellent recovery secondly when he inside mental health treatment he gave a history of being worried about the ins suspension at work and this event in the summer of two thousand in july of two thousand and three when he was suspended from work because he was found sleeping in his truck b october accident really there was no involvement of that in his mental health condition or medical evidence counsel in this record to support the commission's decision i'm sorry is stified that in essence he get upset mantras over what was going on at work with his suspension in fear of losing his job dr raf once he was provided all of the information in the case concluded first said his mental activities that were inconsistent with major training in the doctors in this case opined that the claim and psychological injuries were connected to the shoulder injury there was testimony a very vague and general nature that shoulder injuries involved pain and pain can cause depression there was no specific persuasive testimony and that's what the commission evaluated and certainly found that wasn't the case when they found no causal connection so what and moved to in his argument was that there is no medical chain of connection between the shoulder injuries and the mental health in the connection rather there is some sort of  physical injury work related dispute and then the work related dispute causes the mental health trauma that's not and the cases he cited none of them support the proposition that the wor compact woods would did include that type of analysis in a causal connection case because both c n n and northern illinois in those cases are all the medical consequences of an initial injury down the road either you know some are heart attack cases or so as a cases but there's some medical connection and so i don't think the case why sports  does support the premise that this employment dispute which by the way a rose because they had a backlog of streetlights his boss said i need you to knock out more street lights then your doing  didn't they put him under surveillance and he was shown sitting in his truck for hours at a time doing no work he testified that when he left the area he was a positive struck and he did what he wanted to do and he further testified that most days he would spend between two and a half and up to four hours not doing sitting in his truck so it the change in his life to change in his life was he was asked to do more be mental to mental type of analysis so in this case i think what he's trying to do is get around that analysis mr matresse could have filed a mental to mental claim stating that july of two thousand and three he sustained a mental trauma that resulted in a mental disability the reason he didn't is it's not a pathfinder situation getting suspended from being found sleeping in your truck is one of these day to day occurrences that are normal and employer employee stress and under the parts case it doesn't give rise to the significant prolonged actual stress that would give rise to the more gradual mental to mental seat on a path finder you don't have g m pirates i don't i  what i think in theory an employer could do things that were so outrageous that it would give rise to a mental to mental case there are some cases out there the facts in this case way support that furthermore the commission got all these disputed facts and you know that for every you know he is only cited in his brief and in this argument and most extreme  interpretation in i think at times totally wrong account of the facts and the commonwealth edison resents being told they're picking on the scale that they're being evil they're me there we have a guy who we paid full benefits to he's not under any medical restriction and he gets in this in this back and forth with his employer over basically who's a boss does he get to decide what he's going to do or is it reasonable for his employer to say you can't sit in the truck doing nothing you would hear the shirt off his shoes off his pants rolled up and he was sitting there talking to his girlfriend i mean if our employees if your employees decided they were going to do work and that's what they're going to do when they tell you that that's what they're to do you might have an issue with that too and i think so i think that's the fundamental facts of this case and i so i vehemently disagree that the respondent was in any way inappropriate or unfair or discriminatory a case by supports is the attention that the court looked at a similar allegation in levy where claimants said he cut his thumb and to get medical treatment for that he got his car and drove to the doctor while on the way he was but a sequence of events similar to this one and certainly the commission is is not i mean he he he of course can avail itself and is availing himself of the circuit court in pursuing an employment action to debate all those other issues but the commission in this decision on causal connection you know is it has properly analyze the medical evidence properly taken into account all of his arguments and his witnesses and by the way i put on supervisors that said other employees did more lights the anthony cameron's testimony as to how he came up with the team was reasonable and i put in evidence showing him changing a light bulb and it took them a total of five minutes to set the truck up go up and change one so we have lots of evidence showing that the expectation was not unreasonable you can just put together his own testimony as to how much time he spent idle during the day and say well we'd like you to work during that to reason that it was it was reasonable and in fact there were employees doing that type of work he was he was the only one who testified who was only a lamp  filmed sitting in the truck doing nothing so you know he didn't put on other witnesses that said we don't work our full shift in fact they all admitted that it would be unacceptable for them to not work for two hours and sit in their truck if they wanted to so i think those disputes erna since a red herring in this case i think it is a straight medical causal connection case by police decided  the commission circuit court properly applied the manifest way to the evidence standard and we would request that this court firm that rule in using that standard is this decision been well within the manifestly thank you fifteen to twenty that it was hurting him in quieting him probably now all this stuff about this is all conjecture he wasn't fired for sleeping in the truck in the recorder  consideration forward or the desire to fire him was repeatedly injuries in the workplace that's in their documents with him that in it from the internal subpoena documents dealing with that two week suspension why was it in there if they were all bent out of shape because he had been injured and taken a lot of time off work for an injury or more lingering he wasn't suspended for anything but the lingering they don't be recent in charge sleeping in the truck because it there was no evidence of sleeping in the truck i didn't see his head down the window with people do to me absent a truck he's a big trucks moving during m employer who jumped on this me and back and asked him to do the impossible when he came back to work he wanted to spade it is john he came big against medical advice by the way hired expert that took three reports to get the