related she also indicated in her ruling that condition had not yet reached a permanent condition the commission adopted a firm and remanded for further proceedings to determine for their monster total temporary compensation as well as permanent disability if any of you know one of the things that i believe will be a major issue today is the fact that miss or i'm serving excuse me provided she indicated that found that there was in fact causation established as a lot of the cases that your position that is my innocence or is it a correct interpretation of the commission's original findings didn't the commission say its finding was limited to the condition as of february seventh two thousand and four they did indicate that however that is with respect to payments on t t d it did not have to do with her with mr rodriguez congress you work within the holding they also indicated that they would reserve any issues with respect to permanency i think that had to do with only the t t d pay out as a cutoff because at that point in time doctors kronberg was releasing mr rodriguez back to work what they say i believe i believe that at that point they're saying listen there's a causation in fact with respect to the injury i think once you prove causation you don't need to prove it again opponents you work in that specific holding i think she's saying listen at this time t t v benefits are being cut off it's contemporaneous with the fact that he was being returned to work and formally discharged from doctor sponsors care she then also in holding as i've indicated said reserved for permanency which that happens  only submitted one progress note from dr to you know he did not indicate that he had reviewed any of the prior exhibits however that was discussed the issue before the court with respect to that is in the honorable blacks decision indicates there wasn't sufficient evidence based upon only providing one report from doctors obviously that's clearly against the manifest weight of the evidence and there were twenty minutes in total that were submitted to the poor of from the first hearing it doesn't even now was taking that into consideration i don't dispute that that is what it sighs and in my opinion i believe that's pro forma language as part of the order in the body of the order for which arm of black wrote him that would be additional good hearing at that hearing true yes but it doesn't preclude having considered the earlier of this doesn't except he says based upon the insufficient evidence that was provided i think if you look at the total weight of the matter  manifest way to have been submitted at that specific time there are seven additional records from seven doctors in total i don't know if they overlap or not but they all indicate some sort of permanency situation once you have established in the one nine indeed you need to prove that your work related injury is now permanent i believe that he does that with respect to the submission of all twenty plus exhibits with respect to seven different doctors that opine as well as mr rodriguez himself about his physical restrictions as well as pain and discomfort rodriguez's claim for currency based on the evidence submitted at the permanency hearing he goes on to say that that was rodriguez's testimony to medical records he indicated that mr rodriguez had the opportunity to submit medical testimony during his permanent hearing and th language of the order i would present to the court that he did not i would say that that is pro forma language on a on a court order when he goes into actually demonstrate what he reviewed the contra indicates the fact that that's what  i believe that because documents were not specifically tendered seem him at that point he believed that the only evidence submitted to him was an additional report from dr to me i'm going to just use the language which is frequently used number t judged i'm basing my decision after a careful review of all the evidence you could interpret it as meaning something must have been overlooked it's not true it's not that i don't believe it's true right if it had said that he went on to say i reviewed all exhibits then i wouldn't cough and i'd be out of i'd be out of the case the fact that he says he did not is what brings us here he says he only one thing was submitted and that's what he bases decision if he had base it on the nineteen previous exhibits that talk about all of these permanent restrictions limitations and damages then i would say mr rodriguez you don't have a case but he  unequivocally and undeniably established that mr rodriguez had permanency issues with respect to his rotator cuff here and that those injuries were related to the word injury of may first two thousand and three are a trigger like indicated that i reviewed all the four was an emergency hearing it was filed by mr rodriguez seeking temporary total disability benefits payment of medical expenses and penalties against the chicago park district to make a decision that has a february seventh two thousand and four the the petitioner mr grig is present condition of ill being was related up to that point in time to his injury back in may one of two thousand and on to february seventh two thousand and four it makes it very clear which makes that very clear and she basically states in her decision that based on doctors lambert releasing him to full do the work i believe by january seventh two thousand and four december of two thousand and six before our trigger black mr august had an opportunity at the permanency hearing to redress the causal connection issue he could have established a sort of evidence to indicate it has a opposing counsel at the subsequent permanency hearing stipulate a causal connection is an issue he was given an opportunity to produce evidence to show that has of all it has made twelve  condition in february of twenty two for which according to these are two different conditions in seoul they found it didn't present any evidence that his then chronic condition of ill be was causing related to his injury and so they because all of the records that are intervening go to the fact that yes the current is in there's no intervening cause an injury or otherwise i think once you prove causation that it's you were injured as a result of an accident and it's work related had rotator will be related to that she only arbitrator being only cut off the date of february seventh person t v purposes never for permanency therefore i think arbitrator black provide i went back to her decision and said ok now you have to prove causation again she wasn't saying that condition present abortion complains he's complaining about something more than what was there in february of twenty zero four and she's saying you didn't present any evidence of a causal connection functional that's the problem i think that the issue wasn't to somehow know off his right to a promise you should sciri that once you were to your country any other injury you may have your shoulder for the rest of your life is necessarily related to the it's not it's not an easy point i mean an ankle injury now or something like that it's all in the same body all in the same area and if you look at the two thousand and four records it talks about his as a cool imitation is his restrictions the fact that he can't abductor read dr flex