was against the manifest weight as it relates to the causal connection with the best evidence is his daughter nelson's testimony which is the only medical testimony in regards to conservation but it's the best evidence and it's an condition does the commission have to give more weight to medical opinion than the latest case law that says not specifically on point together sole testimony you can prove a case by the sole testimony of the claimant however you can you have to take the other the other evidence and the and see if that still testimony stands up to the other evidence so if you take the chronic case the ramada case you take the people select your case you put them all together if you take those three cases i think that stands for the proposition and answers your question that if you have that that isn't in the paper not entirely self serving so i think in this case there is there is a reason to question mr haines as credibility  because we know he returned back to work for this employer in april two thousand and eight and then shortly continued to work with five other employers for the next fourteen months he also testified on cross examination he admitted that he fell off a roof in one nine hundred ninety and broke a because that the only evidence is the self serving testimony there is a question regarding his credibility and i do think that that sole evidence stacks up to the medical evidence of dr nelson so i don't think they can do a complete resolution of the symptoms but that's not but dr nelson's medical opinion is not based on the complete resolution of the symptoms dr nelson is causation testimony is based on whether or not he improved after the surgery in january two thousand and eight which the medical records show that he did it again and petitioner testified that he did as well dr bonheur didn't know that there was some replacement so i think you can order i think we were stuck with what we can do by ordering future t t d so i believe piece upon the evidence if i believe that the commission's decision is against man a first rate of the evidence then i ask for the petitioners testimony but what you left out of that answer was the court said you can't rely on just the testimony if in doing so or in arriving at that conclusion you arbitrarily dismissed or any opinion you got away it just like you weigh all the evidence and that's what they did here in this case that's what the arbitrator the commission in the circuit court did they waive the opinions and they said we're not completely disregarding and ignoring n just don't think it's credible and here's why dr nelson's opinion was that the new york placement was not related to the work injury because he was certain that  symptoms in his knee and he's just lying about it prior to the work injury dr nelson ed minute during testimony that he had no evidence whatsoever to support is believe the sister had symptoms prior to the work injury he admitted there is no medical not at all to give you look at or you take that into account when you look at the pale of electric case that says you can't rely on a medical opinion that's based on speculation but that's exactly what his opinion was based on mean to speculate as to assume or believe or to think without an that is to support that that's exactly what he had to do in order to arrive at the opinion that the work injury did not anger of a preexisting condition and let's surgeon said they were minimal degenerative changes this guy had a significant injury he underwent surgery he was completely asymptomatic before it is symptoms although they got better and he agreed they got a lot better after they never went away completely and then he needed more treatment and on the day he was last seen prior to this day out part being returned to work the doctor said you're going to need any replacement at some point  accident on december one two thousand and seven is that the record says in the record and i employment to get a better job i went through i think he said it's either for five other employers all through the union doing the same type of work there were no other injuries nothing significant or anything that caused any additional injury or pain to  was employed at the time we found since that time he has had severe disabling unrelenting pain so does say disabling as it did not work he's characterizing it so disabling it's affecting my activities of daily to respectfully argue that dr nelson has a medical doctor has not been rebutted find another doctor and i believe that's the thrust  that case law is that you have the if it's the sole doctor that is giving the testimony that bad square you cannot arbitrarily disregard that i don't think anybody harb case based on the chain of events and reject the decision or the opinion of the opposing physician well i think that's where you can then have you know that would capeci however that's not what the evidence shows it shows that he was able to return back to regular work there was more of it and said hey audie problems doing his work there is no evidence but he did get better in after the children two thousand  that he had been unable to work due to the need pain since the accident on december one two thousand and seven i would agree to have but i would also strictly point out that he was saying it was disabling you know and i think disabling does you know