please call the next case think we know the facts i mean it seems to me that is sort of boils down to a battle of the medical system and the you've got a wall section twelve examining physicians says that it was a result of preexisting activities he's complaining of increase pain with climbing in and out of this cab he's complaining of increased pain with the activity of the press in the clutch eighty times a day of his job so i believe there is evidence in the record that is is there any evidence from the time that he had the pull to be released and returned to work and a little over two years later when there was a recommendation for a total knee replacement i think it is clearly a plan that the aggravation of at our apparently are saying no rush says no to hastings and carlson merely say that the need for the new replacement is also worth rightists they do not make a statement one way or another regarding his work activities and whether or not those would have progressed that austerity condition but i think looking at the the records as they are with with no pain at all and ninety five percent improvement to pain with his work activities and need for a total knee replacement think in this case i think dr walsh overlooks some of the the records that indicated the plaintiff complaints with his work activities i think based on that and his statement but strenuous activity to aggravate such a condition as in they stated it in their decision on one they looked at the fact that both treating physicians were silent and interesting lee enough the petitioner did have a two thousand and four accident petitioner did ask dr carlson in two thousand and four whether he thought that the need for a total knee replacement was related to the two thousand and four fall dr carlson said that it wasn't and that it was based upon his ask your critic condition petitioner doesn't go back to dr carlson to ask  january of two thousand and four accident that had been closed so there's a mistake which is sure wants an agenda he gets an agenda and dr curtis says no no you're right it's a result of his repetitive activities and the commission looked at that factor and decided that dr karl wasn't as credible as dr walsh the fact that petitioner has been attempting to mold the facts to suit his needs in terms of obtaining a total knee replacement i think that that's apparent from the record and i think that the commission looked at that and talk that into account and you can tell that by the timeline in which he invents occurred he tried to get it totally replacement from the zero four and then couldn't get it through his treating physician so instead he settles out the two thousand or accident and then he files he files an accident and says that the accident date is really you know for you meant that to april fifth of zero six later on just  needs in terms of what's going on in the medical records but the commission looked at those medical records and he was never find after the accident of zero four in fact he does complain on august in august of zero five that he does have difficulty going up and down stairs climbing into his truck in his occasional giving way of his need that's not an accident he also complains that he has difficulty getting up out of a chair and saying that the need for total knee replacement is related to getting up out of the chair or he sting said the correct symptoms are due to underlying os your thr from the accident before he goes back to march seventeenth of zero six and he still has complains of pain the doctor sends him back he goes back in march on march seventeenth of zero six and he still relieving those complaints of pain to the two thousand four x that it never says that he has a new aggravation so he also goes back on february twentieth of zero eight and he tells dr khan said he had an accident in two thousand and four and this is where all of his pain is coming from  r himself never indicated that this was repetitive trauma claimed in till we actually got to trial and he testified and that was one of the issues that i did have initially was that i wasn't sure what he was alleging based upon all of these he testified that he felt that this was a repetitive trauma injury that's what the application alleged but he never stated that it was from the truck we weren't quite sure what he was alleging again until we actually went to trial because dr coles first report he went into dr cohen said i had an accident i fell in in two thousand and four so dr cole related it to that the commission looked at all of these facts they looked at the fact that and they found interesting the fact that the doctors t doctors were silent and then they looked at me report and then they looked at dr cose report and they found him not to be credible he didn't find incredible because he issued that second opinion he did not know the in the future if his arthritis progressed so clearly at that time he was not finding any need or for a total knee replacement and it wasn't until after he continued working his symptoms increased