in french the procedural history the factual background been set out with numerous references within the briefs now get right into the argument on critical issues if that's all right court i i reviewed the law the case reviewed the authority that was to date at that point in time in reference to the law of the case i respect he suggested in reviewing all the decisions that were done over the years and and really until two thousand and three in the is should be case that i believe was just as aldrich is decision prior to their workers comp had and had a specific law of the case it was referenced in a sense person stone case wherein it was held that you could have a second i'm nineteen the hearing with the first one is pending on appeal and to an extent that's related to swell because part of the promise of not wanting to have a second b yet is we have decided the repeated hearings involving different time frames in different factual issues and different medical conditions that come to the forefront and we see constantly however in in these cases where in both respondents and petitioners try and deny that which i when i was on many of these cases who was on the eve of absence at the time rule that this is a different set of circumstances we're dealing now with something that wasn't really specifically found originally not only wasn't a founder isn't that treating doctor who still trying to connect it suggested she could go to work and additionally there was an s t d it was done the way it wasn't admitted apparently in the first hearing it was done during that purpose you got here and it doesn't because what you just said is that he's going to probably say you know the law of the case i suppose arguably even of the commission decides the law of the case isn't going to apply we could decided it could see you've got t issues you get the order which you know certainly suggest what the commission is thinking to carry some weight but you've also got to look at whether or not the subsequent hearing was the same issues as earlier you're saying clearly the permanency hearing was not that is correct  masks the inside mental instability the previous thing condition of the spinal osa spineless pieces that was having in the accident didn't come to the forefront till later and that was what was involved in the permanency hearing and there was evidence in the record of the chang related you you you you prove your accident but if you're on a jet ski at least for right now and he was careful he says you are a condition of ill being that doesn't justify further t third district the rest of your life but i don't get into this particular appellate level all that often the last time was two thousand and nine and can't remember people faces from that long gone sure you don't remember me either but it was just from toral for this petitioner again to try and court when he basically made his own judgement and reversed the commission decision that was one reason i suggest but he also changed some of his rationale between the  granted is off you can be a question a lot was determined help in the long but also certainly when you get past that it's all mad this way and i think it also can be argued that when you're dealing with these facts and interpretation the the same condition for the same thing there wasn't a change in the factual scenario here you do have zero on your to your time is up to five time or five thank you thank you is giving us not much guidance on it he claims if i understand the argument correctly it just decided the period of t t d and addition that it could not have decided this means condition that resulted in the surgery i believe december january jane is that would it decide will who make that determination of the commission the next proceeding he said the commission should read consider the causation issue he knew what had been decided while getting back the law of the case what do you make of the commission's order that states quote th will be a bar to further hearing the determination of a further amount of temporary total compensation or compensation for permanent disability if any what do you make as to the import the meaning of that letter here attributable to the work related condition which was the sprain strain this is something about which there is no argument this gentleman has not worked he had surgery he didn't go back to work it all spondylolisthesis spine little lisas which was the subject of the surgery not the sprain strain which the arbitrator the commission found to be work related conditions they found the spine the oldest pieces of funding elise's nap to be work related conditions therefore if this gentleman had more medical treatment per screen a strain if he had had more last time for a sprain and strain yes if any this is  late by the way your honor boilerplate language and all nineteen b decisions in this particular case have to go back to the arbitrator by the way because we need to determine what the man's been from the screen straight so this is just stating the obvious that there must be for the proceedings will determine what he has coming if any he doesn't name date a reconsideration of the causation issue causation decision not a minute i mean we need to understand something all of us and that is this this was not in a cult condition this was not something no one knew a lot there were m r i and c t scan studies done illegal movie twice and i am very impressed with president lincoln he tried to convince his absolute cabinet that having three hundred thousand plus people died in a war miss something it had become for something you just can't pretend it didn't happen something here we have a decision i want to say it counts for nothing all i was only cut off of t v because i lied but now i'm telling the truth and therefore we should reconsider the causation condition you were to say it was it based on credibility it was based on that ability wasn't in part perhaps but at this point your honor at the point this decision became final the rationale didn't matter it's final they found him not credible among other things perhaps sometimes you know these decisions are like this the case of our little earlier this decision to pull up is not as well read but if i may from the considering because it had been found not related if i may in july this is when the doctor talked to the man about your only option is surgery that's when the test was done if it did reveal the the fact that condition may have worsened over the summer got worse than the other surgery found the floating piece again the worsening of the condition is not the  is related there was a preexisting condition of that it wasn't in this judge's mind sufficient to justify him being off work but this finding isn't a causation finding on this ob period it's really even leading to was the crux of it and it's not a medical one because if it was a medical it is they're saying this arbitrator would have worn the bills for the period of time after that and he did it warn of the bills through the closing improves and he stated that all the medical treatment including  that this condition really manifested itself with corroborating evidence not known at that time when justice cries out and demands that the trust awarded this guy title to maybe there was an argument as he said she said on a jet ski there was a change more singing this fits in the parameters of national reckon company and why are the language that there was no bar later hearing you've got a totally thousand beers to deal with the issues at that time doesn't it meeting sure does guy can't go back to get t v for that time clooney can't get the bills for that time period but that's what was it issue there that's not what's an issue now it's an issue now is the substantial condition to being that this guy is probably told disabled has had surgery is looking at potential additional surgery that's built up by a substantial record made it's totally unrefuted this is an example of someone trying to hang onto a legal technicality to stop justice in th just like it was tried to do by the fishman wire case and just like was tried to do by the respondent in the national reckon company case and that's why when this court looks at these cases it recognizes that worker's comp unlike other areas of law that look at law the case deals with different operative facts different time periods and and different different legal issues involved in connection with the later issues and that's why we suggested a mature adult decision from by the commission was