briefs were prepared in this case this court less than a month ago it should have just been addressed as it's kind of a sub issue of the manifest weight inquiry specifically whether to apply an extra degree of scrutiny work commission has rejected the arbitrator's findings particularly on credibility and has reversed an arbitration just vision in that case as you know  well the commission did give some dig every it's reasons some of the base they step forward findings the fact that they went through the facts they laid out the facts and then they said well you know here's dr merced here well we we look at this differently well why do they look at this different you look at the reasons that they they gave these they claim that dr mercier had made concessions in his testimony and that's just not so i've set forth i think pretty clearly it particularly on page twenty seven of my brief regarding the back issue that it was clear that the lumbar m r i findings to correlate with his physical examination findings that he saw this gentleman within about findings were not in a time a call and showed signs i'm a lingering now if you look at the totality of dr mercer's opinions i think it's compelling that the commission specific you know almost cherry picking looking at you know a specific statement versus the tally of his opinion as well as without delivering that there's a difference between giving the reasons and giving some knowledge that  i guess there would be but the cases where i have i think this argument i've seen this argument the commission has given reasons but again i think it's has to be in the context of the totality of i mean looking at considering all the evidence not just you know specifics you know to kill or you know evidence you know in that in that case that was decided last month the facts include that the contemporaneous medical records lacked any reference to work injury that there was lack of treatment for a period of weeks and this is despite the claimant having had several opportunities to report an injury to seek treatment there the average trader had found that he testify credibly but citing those facts the commission said he was not credible his testimony was not credible when obviously the claimant argued that the ira traders and credibility determination should be given some deference by you know ultimately the commission found that consideration of all the facts and circumstances demonstrated that back claimant had failed to prove the threshold accident has ability and that ultimately this court determined that th same facts constituted the manifest weight of the evidence in that case and i would contend that there are similar facts in this case that constitute the manifestly this evidence and serve as the basis for denial of a claim you know that the need there's really two parts there's a need condition and there's the back condition if you can with the need it's particularly compelling because there we see delayed complaints delayed reporting to his own treating doctors for a period of weeks and this is despite this gentleman going to see his chosen chiropractor six times between the date of the accident and january twentieth when he finally did say well there's a problem with my knee and each time he went in and he completed with the bat he might have had some radiation in might had a past year your problem but that's not what he was complaining of so it wasn't consistent with the mechanism of the injury or his complaints and you know they would talk to her stare sees him again in may of zero four he says well given the absence of any pain complaints in january of zero four and i had no positive knee findings then you know th and here the commission made an assumption that he had reviewed the neaera i think it's clear from his reports he reviewed the lumbar m r i but not in the m r i and he may have taken some x rays a week doesn't state what those x rays or are and so his diagnosis of a fracture which was not even made until the third visit you know is also questionable i mean here we're looking at the totality of the audience regarding the knee and dr mercier has a more compelling supported decision regarding the back well you have used mesh dr montoya now his testimony is not even consistent with his own findings he testified to frequent changes in diagnosis and opinions regarding ability to work despite having unchanged unchanging lack of objective findings and he regularly deferred to the petitioners own request to be off work or be released to work i mean it's interesting that at his initial he was june twenty fourth oh for examinations so he's not seeing the petitioner for six months he has no interest in the past treatment he stated that he did not even care to review those prior records so i'm mad january excuse me june twenty fourth say he finds petitioners condition is severe and debilitating and yet miraculously two weeks later if he releases the petitioner to unrestricted work and i think you know he has little credibility and that's what i heard traitor kind of been found in this case  apparent because when you have to look at the underlying basis for those opinions and dr provisos doesn't doesn't support it dr montel as the ultimate opinion doesn't support it dr mercier he has the opportunity to look at everything you know he's he sees this gentleman within three weeks of the accident he sees them again and then and then you've got a doctor who again reviews all the prior treatment he looks at the mechanism of injury he looks of the complaints both  findings i mean these are all laid out my brief in the various decisions and he says well based on this it's a it would have been appropriate to treat him maybe for a month you know he says twelve kind of frantic seen it that way it's not president but that honestly that's the only case i've seen where they've said look you know when you when you weigh these two pinions and you look at you know this doctor you have to say well what is what is it based on i think in that case it was actually a causation encouraging him to it's probably a repetitive trauma case as i recall that they were looking at you know just the doctor is he fully informed as to what the demands of their job were that's that's the only case that i you know i have seen although i would you know i've discussed them in my brief i mean i think that there are there's a language found in both the  refined what we're talking about with manifest way the evidence and what i took from those cases is that the court must come up with a sensible conclusion and its findings should not defy logic and i think under both  who to believe in what to believe in terms of conflicting evidence there is no case out there that i know of that process is out portions of medical testimony in saying that there isn't credible evidence in the record to support a decision i'm giving her an argument all due respect what your reaction to that or any restrictions ever will certainly if there is a situation where you have treating physicians and then you have  gap in time and then another treating physician after that the and the decision may rely on that subsequent treating opinion and certainly the i would think that there could be in a good argument made the opinion of that later treat or after a gap in period of time may not be credible or based on the evidence the whole my point being that that's not the situation at all here on montel comes on the scene a few months later his conclusion was and i still  it leslie and i'm going to touch very lightly on it is the extra scrutiny argument the counsel talks about a recent case that seems to be an issue of accident here we have no issue of accident and here we have a case that the commission said isn't specific reasons for their opinions someone else may disagree with them cite other evidence or wrong good but the commissions are the emphasis they wish me to sit on the evidence and so on there's credible evidence to support it and it's not against manifest weight and that circumstance where there are specific reasons and there is evidence to support it to say that therefore somehow the decision of the arbitrator should be given some extra degree of scrutiny because she had made an initial determination as to credibility different from the commission which i feel in  fifteen day we've got fifteen days before any need involvement appears in the medical record but we have a doctor explaining why the fifteen days is  reasonable for a specific need problem surface in terms of a document complained in the record his ultimate way his diagnosis of it is also excuse me questionable and the only other thing i would i would want i just want to point out is that i cited of page twenty two of my original brief and  court statement in the cook case and they said that the decision of the commission must be found in understandable conclusion and it is not a test to simply