because his doctor required suggested surgery and employer was not going to pay for any treatment there was a a couple of delays in this case that extended how we got to hearing first  when i started to investigate the claim he told me he was hired by an employer a person gave me his name who was working for a general contractor that was doing construction a remodel in addition to our house  single family home in naperville adding of a room on the third floor i did a freedom of information request of the village and asked for a building permit so i could find out who was doing the work and no building permit obtained the visual of this in the record yes it is the village actually then stop the work a building permit was obtained and i filed a claim of initially against the guy that hired him have insurance and that's how we got against the general contractor we did it is a one thousand b one in addition because my client had spent nine excuse me six months in cost rated in jail and that delayed some medical treatment he was unable to get medical treatment while i was in jail and so when he came out he followed up with medical care and then dr templin recommended that he have a fusion  age they progress  commission i do not find his present condition of ill being to be related to this incident that occurred at work is that or correct he found that there was an injury and the testimony of off four witnesses was he fell off a ladder and he fell according to my client through the floor that they were working well i know there's a dispute there we have we have some people saying his footprints were dry wall and he was remained upright there significant there is a in other words he has no history of any other injuries he has no history of any other condition bursting comes to the conclusion that that you know he talks about the x rays taken on the date of the fall of the emergency room  he said he was looking the other direction when my client on the other witness the other witnesses said that the other witness clearly says the other employee is not my client's brother clearly said my client fell through the floor jo any further treatment bernstein said is there his current conditions and not the kind of condition or complaint is not borne out by the original m r i that was taken and second rule based on his orthopedic surgeon and you may not get any further relief but you certainly have them to eat for the time he was awful or you would pay for the medical treatment he did get and that would be required under the act there's just no way you can interpret  that's not her equals that he says it's not a contributing factor to his condition so the only contributing factor to his condition is the fog of war and and to get in yes there was a dispute about how high he was up on the ladder but the two of them that were working on those letters said they were up at the ceiling hanging ceiling joists so there are letters that are on while the temporary floor on choice of the of the got drywall down below in the ceiling he fell all the way through those choices there nobody testified to joyce like that are usually sixteen inches apart you don't fit through there without moving your body up and especially when you go all the way through the floor and get stopped then again i don't think that's supported by any evidence even bernstein's opinion doesn't really say that he's he says he's a functional valuation exam bunch of functional capacities and he says that's what he needs to determine what work he can do those are not really relevant to you today as you've all indicated this is a manifest weight case arbitrator o'malley and the commission and the circuit court off on that there was no evidence that supported it petitioners assertion that just because the connection between this alleged incident happened it works so what's your response to well there was some history is testimony was he did have some prior problems in two thousand and four and there was also just an absence of the medical records to support his assertions now that arbitrator called into question his credibility i think based on the differing versions of the petitioner testified they fell off a ten foot ladder employer tested it's impossible whether the space they're working to where no ten foot ladders it's impossible that it occurred the way he described it i think that one is the arbitrator's finding that there was a lack of credibility based on petition was trying to get the case granted based solely on his testimony the hearing officer didn't agree commission did not agree they reviewed the record circuit court here the record they did not agree either and of leaders anything in the record that would show that the for the first six months that even bernstein's evidence says he suffered something below back injury i think that is based on the history as provided by the petitioner which is the other trader chose to disregard that's my understanding judge there was no correct and there's was no evidence regarding that but there was no evidence at all regarding dia ledged right knee injury which she testified to there was no evidence whatsoever by any treating physician regarding that alleged injury you know how many visits to the medical facility or was a break in the treatment due to unrelated issues and then there was a significant break in time and then he returned after that and after his release then he started to return to dr templin that was after a decent period of time to st joe's medical center for emergency room low back pain right pain data service ten eleven twenty three ten twelve one three twelve three twelve nine twelve fourteen two twelve sixteen two thousand and ten that's on a an exhibit that was  does have those listed again the emergency room those are november twenty third two thousand and ten the date of the accident and then several in december he's got templin down and we report we have reports from templin about when he saw him up until he was incarcerated they were ins i should say insignificant they want significant compared to the cost of the perspective surgery this was a nineteen b one he already had that treatment we didn't care about getting it paid for then we wanted to get him his a surgery and you know that i thought one thousand b one was a way to do that maybe it was my mistake but i don't think there's any evidence that supports after finding that he was injured in the fall  causally related i be arguing that because i think dr temple is report all doesn't write it the way i would like to have had him write it he clearly clearly refers to the worker's compensation act and says you don't like my opinion i want that review so he clearly thinks it's work related and we're covered by the work out of it ok when he wants a preview of what if if the if they won't pay for a surgeon if they won't approve the surgery for