raise is the issue of waiver we raised this in our reply brief asking that the sanction of waiver be applied in this particular case with respect to the consideration of consuls brief and taking away his opportunity for all argument for failure to cite to the record reason i waive raised a tear is i raised it below in the circuit court we have the same situation in the circuit court i filed the motion i've raised the issue and instead the circuit court judge allowed counsel time to i meant is brief and put the proper citations to the right i lived with the best that's understand but now we are here before this court and we have the same situation made appears that the that the apple e did not learn its lesson below and now before this court does not cite to the record to this court record respect to the issue of the lumbar condition of the lumbar condition was found not to be causally related this is a manifest weight argument the commission tradition was not related based upon dr butler's first report from march of two thousand and six in which doctors published stated there was no evidence of medical care or complaints of low back pain prior to november seventeenth two thousand and five and the commission also referenced that that there was no that the first stage of treatment of or any report of low back problems was november seventeenth of two thousand  the date of the accident was october twenty five two thousand and five the petitioner's testimony was there and he twisted his neck right shoulder his right hand and is pulled back in this injury he testified only cervical strains that contain no mention of lumbar injuries that were the initial the treatment he received was not to address to his lumbar spine but he made mention of it he made mention prior to that right after the accident occurred he was driven to the hospital and filled out an accident report the accident report references that he injured his little back that occurred within a half hour of the accident on the way to mercy works he made mention of it to the gentleman who drove him who filled out the accident report but when was it first they know how long after the date of the alleged injury was lumbar strain actually diagnosed by anybody well after he left mercy works which was the first facility he went to he went to his doctor two days later dr brash dr brash he gave a report of low back injury and dr brash ordered lumbar x rays so at the first office visit with his physician on october twenty seventh dr brash ordered x rays of the lumbar by at the next visit with dr brash he makes mention of lumbar spine injuries nov seventeenth of two thousand and five dr brash orders a second set of lumbar x ray that's all within the first weeks two and a half weeks three weeks of the accident and that's the third doctor appointment that he had of the three appointments he had had since the spine he referred this gentleman out to other physicians however despite the fact he wasn't treating him for the lumbar spine in all of his records leading up to the right trilled or surgery which happened in december of two thousand and five he notes that the claimant had low back pain and then at the pre operative post operative visit after the shoulder surgery on december sixteenth which is roughly eight days after the shoulder surgery his history is continued neck and low back complains  condition was due to the not the normal degenerative process of aging so you have the stance of all conflict between the two experts why couldn't the commission believe butler overbridge because what dr butler said i don't believe d butler said all this represents at the first visit is a normal degenerative process in the back his opinion was the first time noted in the medical records that he ever mentioned the low back was november seventeenth of two thousand five therefore his low back condition is not related to this accident dr butler didn't have the proper information before him either had the records and didn't look at them or he looked at them and didn't forward an m r i that was ordered for the lumbar spine had not yet gone for when he first saw doctor butler and yet dr but true clues that the snow cervical condition which only had ben had not been treated had only been subject to an m r i was causally related as was the shoulder condition his only basis for saying the lumbar condition wasn't a limited was i don't see it in the records that he's ever complained about it well it wasn't the records how it used that videotape evidence the videotape evidence showed this gentleman pushing a stroller backing his car out driving to an appointment with his doctor and his granddaughter for three year old didn't work or surgery that was dr butler's opinion at the first exam what happens at the second exam when he looks at the videotape evidence he had gone through the therapy he had gone through the injections he failed at all of the conservative measures so what should dr butler's opinion be ok i guess he needs the surgery instead dr butler says there's scant evidence that he received any treatment to the cervical spine there wasn't scant evidence there was he h ad knowledge is that he didn't have the diagnostic stuff films you didn't he didn't look at the right he didn't know what procedures and injections had been performed upon my client instead he takes the he has a cervical strength and now he can go back to work full duty and that's where the commission abuses its discretion with respect to this videotape you can't take a videotape that took pics of persons activity level at a certain point in time and use that as a guide gnostic tool you can use that to say ok well it's not logical to do that it's not a diagnostic tool i'm sorry truth to his doctors and therefore his doctors were robbed of the opportunity to give credible opinions themselves because any kind he said would be subjective complaints were there undermined as a result of that videotape during at the second examination but how does a person i can understand the claim of mullingar ing if the person that had surgery and then just never tells the doctors it's better but this is a different situation  so said that the condition is related it requires therapy and injections and if he doesn't respond he needs a single level fusion those things all happened he went under one therapy he underwent the injections neurosurgeon at northwestern saying the neck condition is caused to be related he needs surgery and we've got to prompt at cia and then say the next condition is related to needs to have the surgery even after reviewing dr butler's actual fact and the actual fact here is mr you gracey underwent the conservative measures and the conservative measures failed and therefore by the analysis of all of the medical doctors involved here he should have been a candidate for the single of the fusion which should not happen here is that the employer should be let off the hook and the medicare system or the veterans administration system have to pick up the cost of the surgery that false and they were false because he's not credible because of this videotape and what was it that happened on the videotape that he was supposed to tell the doctors i don't think the doctor certainly would have understood that he drove to their office for an and i think then take some of the things that are in counsel's brief and what he's indicated here are not after the first thing would be the initial mercy works for him which was ten twenty five o five which indicated made back complaints not mo back when you the back there's actually nothing in there is first somebody complaining specifically about the low back there's no diagnosis for say the next record is eleven seven o five mercy works we're ready to the point here where there's an taking them along with the videotape you know counsel indicates here that the videotape can't substitute for diagnosis or substitute for medical findings what i would state in there is what it does is put its credibility into question it's not indicating everything's false with regard to this individual what it does andy the idea that somehow if he's doing normal daily activities it's not going to say much what i think the arbitrator focused on was how he was doing that and videos now it's going down to wakes up additionally some of the if you look through his testimony and some of the records here there are some unrelated conditions that are involved here one was pointed out by dr domingo was got there also he ha lots of things that are that are going on with this and i think the arbitrator in the commission did their best to make a determination specifically with regard to cervical spine one of the things i found in the briefing that i had a lot of difficulty with with you was there was a consistent reference to the e m g showing in the military in the cervical spine i completely disagree with that there were two and even g s to it one was in two thousand and six one was in two thousand and seven the first one i another reference that comes up here is the idea that simply because there's a path out you of some sort or another found in an m r i that immediately means that there is some kind of surgery required without any reference to the subject complaints of the petitioner and i completely disagree with that in this case certainly was there some finding in the m r i that there was never really in the cervical spine yes we had evidence that this gentleman had had prior cervical problems number one number two the subject of complaints of the of the plaintiffs in this case where the petitioner as we've gone through there's multiple and as they go through my grief there's multiple references as to why this gentleman was not credible it thinking this man is a liar he actually doesn't tell the truth but what happens when people exaggerate their complaints or they do things that aren't credible is it takes everything to a speculative point it leads us to a point where we don't know what what the actual complainants are and what their parents and i think that's exactly what happened in this case with regard to dr bob or one of the things i would say is i think that the butler by his first initial report actually showed his credibility in this case until he knew all these that all these other things that put the petitioner's complaints into question he was inefficient citing that first report that's why he agreed yes if these subjective complaints continue after this treatment surgery would be reasonable and by the second time he saw him he had the videotape you had findings of simply being a vacation that's what changed things in this case and i don't think anybody would argue that simply because there's a so finding and cervical and neither of them had any reference point to any of these things all they were doing was relying on what as soon as they got a report of dr butler they knew the video existed nobody requested that video nobody requested that th video be presented to his doctors so that they could apart and i think when you look at the video and you look at the conclusions of the commission you know exactly why nobody showed those doctors that because it clearly shows a man this th take this video and you see it this is the complaints he's making in the medical records you see a vast difference and that's why they're so i rely upon those arguments your honors as well as what's in the not having been the attorney who initially handled this case for tried it i can't answer whether they had videotape was demanded or not aware of or having seen the videotape what exactly is it on the videotape that would possibly suggest that the gentleman acknowledges she was not provided medical records he didn't know what injections had been administered he hadn't seen therapy records you may see record a characterization of there being scant medical evidence that may be true for him but there was a lot of medical evidence that was available all doctor thought it was given was this videotape he didn't have the medical records so his opinion that the claimant is suffering from a cervical strain isn't based on a review of the medical records it's based on a review of the videotape and vets were saying that the videotape has been given far too much case way out of proportion to what it should be and therefore the commission abused its discretion by allowing have a videotape to be something that could strike down the credibility of the claimant when he's talking to his doctors and can completely disregard the objective medical evidence there is no faking what's on the murat's there's no faking the response to the injections there's no faking what the response was to the therapist the therapist in saying he was willing to bring failing to cooperate not coming in this ng appointment he was making all of his appointments he was going to therapy he was giving a good effort and none of it worked he still been ridiculous symptoms down the arms and also he eventually developed it down both of the legs with respect to dr you port and dr brown only being able to go by what the claimant told them that's simply not true they ordered diagnostic tests they reviewed those diagnostic tests and based on those diagnostic tests they made their conclusions these are physicians who can have the wool pulled over their eyes  treatment in workers comp cases cia and then and northwestern they had the proper information before they make your conclusions this minute surgery when dr butler looked at the medical records he made the same conclusion only when he didn't look at the records and only considered the videotape with respect to preexisting conditions there were findings of ginger findings in the claim and cervical spine and there were findings of degenerative changes in these lumbar spine but there is no evidence in this record that he had a