sense i listened to the other oral argument previous two hours and i was kind of setback because we basically have two different extremes here counsel stated the commission gave them a fourteen page opinion as to why they made the decision they did became to lose and that they did were as we simply got a this for the commission to come to that conclusion that arbitrator mathis have not reviewed the issue causation and what the facts are in which i'm sure the court won't wear that on january fourteenth two thousand and six maryland time with the employees working for lenders bagels are mad too and she was taking out trash the dumpster with fellow employee when she slipped and fell the floor that it been squeegeed earlier it was either still wet or frosted over and she fell and hit her head very hard she had had any difficulties prior to that time she wasn't seeking any me deposition undergo surgery that would stabilize her spinal cord and that stabilizing the spinal cord reduce the risk of sister suffering paralysis should she fall but such surgery would not change her symptoms and that he needed to remove the tumor holding this and he said that we don't know this is in both of the dot both dr rice testimony as well as dr van flees we don't but she did have many of these issues before and he said we don't know if she would have needed surgery six months from now five years now or or if at all but both of them say unequivocally she doesn't need it page seventeen where we press that in where he writes a letter to their nurse practitioner i believe it was he goes into great detail as to why wired surgery to be good with the second thing is that he says that she will continue to deteriorate as you said if she doesn't have it is the eat then sleep testifies says that th have evidence of there's there was an m r i that he had from two thousand and three that's one of the other issues we have with respect to what you're saying and why you believe that it's clearly erroneous what the commission found because there is no evidence of any signal trace no evidence of any old in this what doctor and again both of them testify we don't know if she would ever drop had to have surgery she needs it now because she has attention but she as she cranked her head on for absolutely she now has this stammer spinal cord or we have to believe that pressure that's one of the benefits of dr wright says that he would she will receive his increased blood flow and thirty this compensation possible it is it is in those instances where there's evidence to show that the current character of the injury has been changed that was not present here dr wright in issue he stated this surgery wasn't meant to relieve the effects of her injury it was simply to provide space around spinal cord prevent further injury i think that's an important distinction future correctly a perp already measure because she is more sensitive to heavy but the point is it's still closer than it was before the accident if if we look at some of the medical records from dr wright dr wright states for me she looked pretty good i wasn't all that concerned i still think she needs a surgery she should have waited to me to avoid the risk of injury her condition had a proven doctor right soccer in june of two thousand and six so mad right testified that the decompression surgery we have no effect on the point of spinal cord injury for a period of time going on june twenty seventh two thousand and six once a condition has stabilized t t d is no longer do it she'll know from the commission's decision they worded well she would have been out of the make anyway i mean this was not an issue in arbitration i did have the upon symptoms that's fine but and i understand there is some evidence of symptoms and leave it up to decide whether or not that's enough to determine that she wasn't in my and therefore she was doing to the day period but again now we're now we're me it's on page ten i'm sorry dr grantly at this time the patient does not have the time so the patient does have evidence of congenital canals to notice which we're not denying and has to gnosis at this point time with or because of the spinal cord injury no he says i would recommend the surgery do the fact that she has spinal stenosis and or signal change or signal change is the injury to the spinal cord so we have two reasons why the doctors explaining the legal side of of this case to them so that we have a clearer picture but you know i think that this is clearly an exacerbation case without question and i really don't understand