also a quote battle of experts and now both dr payne and dr grange testified by deposition you are in the exact same position to judge their chose which one to believe you have the same exact evidence in front of you the arbitrator had nothing more than you so it's just to see if you know you can you can judge their credibility and and had well if you look at the at the decision of the arbitrator there are a lot of things that the arbitrator that are in the depositions that the arbitrator did not take note of in the decision and and those are in well dr payne and was asked questions about a possible connection and he said this is this can you know the sis consistent with the the the  problems that were presented to you and he said it's consistent with the symptomatology for causing the symptomatology not not the condition itself because in sentimentality if i take a pencil on and and press it against my leg that may cause symptomatology it wouldn't mean that i broke my leg because that pencil but we know that picking up this ten pound log and throwing it cause sentimentality we don't know that it cause and a true aggravation of the center of the spine lotus thesis and so he was asked well what's the basis for that and he said well conceptually and that it didn't get better and then on cross examination i asked him to take a look at his and his from operative report and he had to admit there was no small herniated yes cross examination i asked him of questions about the ten pound log as well my fire with his larger than that and know that kind of a lift is not something which should by my opposing counsel this is a battle of the experts dr payne didn't testify to having any great expertise in regards of this these but he says he he has been practicing at the time information but he was wrong and and this is a weird case where a fellow has all the information he's been given the history he's seen the fellow is treated and he did surgery on him and after he had to admit that there was no herniated disc and there was no surgery ok but he never retreated from his opinion that the twist in caused an irritation of the nerve that never recover i mean he testified that commission we believe that that's you are correct just when you are correct we did but again it's a battle of the experts he has no great expertise compared back since they were the ones who used the phrase battle of the experts compare that weight such as this limb is not sufficient to aggravate spinal it ceases to the point where it needs surgery even dr pain testified that lifting to pain so when you first commission can we do then well i know i don't think you can do it as you stated but if you look at the arbitrator's decision which was just adopted without comment by the she wrote a very detailed dissent explaining why there was here and what she concludes in her dissent are the things that are not included in the arbitrators decision are treated ever mentions this erroneous belief of the  that is the arbitrators job actually is to make that determination whether it does or does not make sense i know no problem with that but the arbitrator totally omitted it as if he didn't notice it i can't say he didn't morning he had been throwing picking up and twisting and throwing much larger limbs his job caused them requires him to lift up to one hundred pounds and he was he said he was lifting much larger and throwing them earlier in the day they didn't cause it a pebble does it mean you can't recover for the one they did one thing i mean for instance one future earning capacity has a very little weight it to him he had to admit this man is making as much if not more money now than he was the time of the accident therefore i'm giving it no w percentage i said it should be sent back because i think that i agree with your standard approach which is the arbitrator and commissioner in a best position to determine the severity of the  discuss the issue of twisting and i pulled up the last thing that pain said in the redirect and he said anytime you're twisting in the lumbar spine we know that your intake of the fibers of the outer layers of th people who come in his office on the real life they had their surprise both positions say you can be asymptomatic now the difficulty i have with what pain says is pain says as you indicated earlier justice hoppin there is a temporal relationship you very you very much may be great i'm sorry great there is in him there is a temporal relationship for the first time he has an automatic sense of pain to his lower back but if it was simply a lumbar sprain electrical and impulse that would be consistent with the compression and be all by nerve due to the twisting nature of the injury cell and and there is no explanation like doctor to grange as to why the reasonable explanation as to why a temporal relationship doesn't carry the day that's his problem and pain provides none exists he's also trying to indicate ok in the body of the decision by the arbitrator in the issue in the commission you have to use words such as mitigate or aggravating factors and there's nothing in the statute that says that you have to provide an explanation and that's exactly what the arbitrator did with mission firm on the most important part and i know we're not really talking about thirty pathology is not shared the remedy which would require a new fusion then he is going to have this ongoing symptomatology for the remainder of his life which is the pain that he has in his back and the difficulty that he has walking and doing other actors that is the ultimate point why the commission awarded thirty percent and why do this in the object of its support subjective complain