days ago and possibly due to lifting up type now this is suspicious to respondent for a number of reasons one out of the blue obviously does not indicate that he's alleging a workers injury and ten to fourteen days ago  a pipe at work was there any evidence in the record to do study the site including on behalf of the response that indicated that the claimant had any lower back problems or difficulties before october fourth two thousand and seven well he claims that the injury o give an opinion at the claimants this creation was caused by the ex and i can report that you know you did but based on a repetitive trauma injury as well and there is no claim for repetitive trauma injury are treated to not find repetitive trauma injury and there in certain situations but i believe you have to look at the totality of the circumstances in which the denial of benefits as well as the lack of written notification is just one factor and there were multiple other factors that led to the basis of terminations need to be considered as well and that's the reason for the termination industrial commission's decision is against manifests with the evidence the issue mainly in this case is causation whether there's sufficient factual evidence in the record to support the commission's determination of a causal relationship and we know that the caterpillars case states that whether some act phase of the employment was the causative factor in this case whether or not the petitioner stipulated work ericsson october fourth two thousand and seven might or could have been a bustani testified to the best of his ability think he is not a machine he is not going to repeat exactly every physician word for word something that happened six or seven months ago the commission took into account that mr bustani described his injury to the providers the providers noted the description of the history in this version of the work activities and found that there was sufficient evidence given by which also confirmed be discrimination in mr bustani and nowhere in the record is it indicated that dr singh ever reviewed the second m r i on this case to opine whether or not he still thought he suffered from a so i think that the medical evidence in the testimony of mr bustani sufficiently creates a record and supports the commission determination that there was a causal connection between yaks the injury of october fourth two thousand four reasons one was there was no written explanation provided upon terminations of benefits to mr bustani or his representative why benefits were terminated yes the responded in this case they did pay some benefits they paid from approximately november first until february two thousand and eight i whenever they provided no explanation to the petitioner or his representative they did not begin paying benefits on october nineteenth when the under an re by the testimony is that the respondent sent mr bustani home because they were worried about liability secondly the opinion they rely on to terminate his benefits the they are well more than welcome to rely on the opinions of a physician but as the case law has pointed out to us that reliance still has to be reasonable under the circumstances in this case where we have a physician who is opining there is no this curry ation when we have a radiologist and two other physicians stating that there is i think and then in a situation where we have their own section twelve examiners stating that mr bustani his condition was causal or a related then i think the commission can take those factors into account and find that that reliance was not reasonable and i believe the case law states that that if the reliance is not reasonable then penalties and fees should be i