the claimants testimony of his duties the circumstances surrounding the accident that anybody disagree with you know there was nobody who testified on behalf of the respond in regards to the accident and also there were specific facts that he had stated that because there were picked to infer in the brief and in their arguments that he didn't even know the acts that date but it's clear from the follow up first medical visit he stated that he had injured his back while he was working as a detailer and that was on january twenty fourth two thousand and eleven after um he treated for about a month of pyro treatment chiropractor treatments he was not getting any better and he notified his employer the reason he delayed opinion i think there was multiple problems with his opinion first off is that he states in his opinion that the petitioner stated he heard himself that there are some head start to have back problems at home when i read the history of the i'm a report it doesn't state that you heard him say or started feeling problems having back problems at home and actually stated started having problems that evening also if you read it closely he gives the wrong accident date within the report itself his accident date of april twenty third two thousand eleven roughly week after the ax that he does give a specific history on march first two thousand load the doctor said or where he was working on a wet floor he had roughly two hundred slits that day right i think it what he did testified that he was sick and then he had a day off and came back to work so i think what happened was as he was one his dad wrote in there that he had the flu on the intake question our doctor which in the back that he associated with back complaints with a potential central nervous system disorder or did he always separate these two diagnoses and the symptoms  signs associated with these two different disorders he did he testified i'm sorry in the report it states that he has there was a back strain but it doesn't from my reading of the report going to point how he got back strain sprain but the symptoms that he or the petitioner was having at time of the i mean was he related to the central nervous system issues he felt that he had what symptoms so i think he had an issue with the idea in the physical exam he hasn't shaking and he came in in a wheelchair and he for the i me any related those symptoms to the central nervous system right i think from reading the the testimony and him taking that surgeon with the medical records is that he was asked what were you doing that day and there was soap and water on the floor and he estimated the slip that many times because you work me so but he also stated that there were slips that he fell back pain with so i think that's what why it would be repetitive promise that he had specific slips where he injured himself but he also had numerous well i guess the fish will treat record doesn't say that i slipped one time while i was picking something up or scrubbing a tire and felt a pop in my back so i guess that there was no specific  thank you on behalf of more morton on the auction you know we have the unusual position here of being an athlete but really we're trying to overturn the commission's decision so it puts us in a little bit different perspective on how we present this case i had really thought about approaching it one way but based on the into whether or not you know how do we view the findings in the chiropractors report and the contention of the two hundred plus many slips etc and then we have the issue of causation in iran and us a question earlier you did of opposing counsel or in the case just before us you know you said we're supposed to look at this with any competent evidence i think you know in a worst case scenario for me if you look at this case and say well you know is there any competent evidence in this case of what happened but while i think it most what we can find is that there is arguably an x not a million that i can argue against that here in a few minutes but i think if you want to say ok we've got some conflicting testimony on the basis of an accident maybe but where where are we on the issue of causation and that's the point i think we break down to are we're going to look at application of the chain of events causation theory versus a medical pena that says this is not related and i think there are two components he pointed this out to serious or two components to his opinion he dr harder talks about the back and then he talks about these ancillary or additional a neurological components and so he's looking at this individual and saying based on the conditions that i'm seeing in my i mean exam i don't find anything in this that relates back to this accident that he's relating to me now i think on the causation aspect again when we start walking down the path of analyzing case on causation obviously that emitted they don't have medical opinion to the contrary so when we look at chain of events we can say ok can we apply to events to this case in the course correct we have to have a condition of good health followed by accident powered by bad health but in this case we've got several events that won't allow us to make that conclusion that he's in good health and these were overlooked by the by the commission you're right when you point out that the car accident occurred when he was twelve or thirteen years old one of that one of the justices mentioned that i was  diagnosis until we get towards the end when he starts talking about pain in discovering the lower extremities stenosis is something that we would expect to see from him to get her condition that we can look back at the prior auto accident now i think that's important the second thing is that claim admitted it page twenty four the arbitration testimony that i had pain in my back and shoulder blade for a couple months prior to the hearing you were accident and he says this is from pushing a lawn more now when you couple that with i'm not believing into the action argument but when you couple that with the chiropractors medical records records that talk about the onset of the symptoms being two weeks prior which was a week before this accident now we've got a very detailed marking something about what this individual's condition was so i guess the court has to ask itself or we don't allow a commission to apply a chain of events series where we've got a clearly a situation where the guy's not in good health and we're going to weigh that against well first of all it wasn't years here it was just a couple my cycle i would be i would have a wholly different opinion of this if we had prior back in place and we're talking about the development of a knee injury but we had prior backing points in the area where he's claiming that this injury manifests itself and i think that's very very significant in this case so that we cannot conclude on this record that this gentleman was in good health i think that's really what this case boils down to this wasn't the help prior to the accident it doesn't mean he was completely but that doesn't mean and if there is a clear distinction between the city or chain of events or causation being applied in cases like this and this is why it doesn't mean he can't recover i would agree with you but what it means is it's going to come in with a medical opinion in that case if the if the individual has a prior you know i think again i'm not saying that in an individual in a case like this cannot recover i think that would be an overstatement on my part what i am saying is in a case like this you can't just rely on the chain of events there if you want to hold a good health  the neurological problems clearly this guy the way he said in front of dr harter is presenting with a whole host of problems many of these problems have appeared to have nothing to do with a kind of what we would know or don't normally associate with a back injury he's saying that he's in a wheelchair he's multiple soroses mr over i'm absolutely convinced he would be able to make the kurds really good argument it has nothing to do with the condition for which he was awarded damages and second of all if he can't work there's a larger question of this depends upon what the commission meant when they said that his coming his condition is causally related to what condition will be speaking up it could be speaking about anything other than go i guess i disagree with that and i can see myself standing here with them they can exact arguments that i'm arguing to right now is they're going to say you had your chance to address this on causation of the one thousand b and you lost and now you have the whole ballgame by and that's why i said if this court if you think that his inability to wear i don't think it's clear why they're saying his inability to work and i i guess i was concerned that we have in this case but again we get back to the original issue does a chain of events the reply i don't think it does because there's not good health it doesn't and i think that's what distinguishes this case you're not going to step on any prior cases you're not going to foreclose the ability to use chain of events analysis you're not going to harm the petitioners burden of proof in any type of a case you're just saying to the petitioners in this situation you can bring in a doctor and that's what i said earlier i have a problem with these cases when you have a back injury you backs are complex in you know that from the cases that you address backs are complex and it's just applied a chain of events syria and this type of case i don't think we can do that we have to have a of those pain complaints as any of us would from probably pushing a lawn mower at that time but he was having no problems at the time of day of the injury and he wasn't having any prior medical treatment except in one thousand nine hundred seven when he had a car accident i think based on those been no absolutely but i think in this case i would argue that he was in good health at the time of the accident and he had consistent medical treatment with a consistent history of injuring himself at work and based on their consistent