the this court has the ability has done some of the past reversed the commission where the facts are against the fungus against the manifest with the facts i don't believe that it requires a score to substitute its own judgment and as we have pointed out in the brief the commission's findings are flat out wrong in certain situations and directly refuted by the medical evidence told him that's correct that the way to do that oh well i asked him to assume certain facts i think that it's permissible for in medical doctor to test a faith testified based upon a hypothetical medical records during the deposition of justice would would review that almost on a visit by visit basis what the findings were or what the complaint he was also the only doctor in the and summer of the summer of two thousand and six with respect to dr del dr del farmer specifically states in his report that he has insufficient information to discuss or thousand and six occurrence of the lower back in a right leg that is the basis for our argument that the commission's finding on causation is not supported by the evidence in the record and the batticaloa opinions d room what's wrong with that is that the petitioner says dr smucker in the spring of two thousand dr smucker notes the lower back problems and then there are left those problems disappear he therapy he sees over quincy back yes and there is absolutely no mention after june of two thousand and five and i would agree that june of two thousand and five i don't mean to be sarcastic is ever genuine too because there is no  dr del hammers opinion was that he had insufficient information it there's nothing in his record to suggest that he and he even admits i have insufficient that's the point of use insufficient information to expert he's he's a treating doctor certainly the doctor can be told the facts are in a short period of time and asked and asked whether and and i think dr reynolds opinions were cast aside for no good reason based upon that conversation when that should know that should have been the case i think dr reynolds opinions provide the only nothing connecting that lower back pain that dr smoker and doctor the chiropractor noted in january and and in june with the condition he had in two thousand and six and in april two thousand and six when all the records our pain except for the one instance with dr smucker and he did not understand what was going on it's clear that he was searching for a reason for why he was having that pain and i think that explains why he gave the notice he gave to his supervisor because at that time he knew he had to have surgery and may sixteenth and he knew that that surge was connected to his work i think intellectually this is an unsophisticated person he was struggling with the connection between his name for surgery and what could have cost i don't think it was apparent to him and that is also a force of some petitioners dr himself provides his opinion they have their condition it's not related to the twelve twenty three incident i would argue that clearly with regard to december twentieth of zero three there is no  been consistent throughout this case he was consistent before he knew of any litigation look at every history he provides to these doctors he sees a slew of doctors he sees doctor smucker he says the same thing i've seen so many doctors maybe nine different doctors i've been thrown around the system no one's really worked up my low back but it's been symptomatic since then original accident to get the fishers own  and i put it in the breed he's in the best position to know if this low back spring is when it gets hurt then you look at the medical evidence we talk about the medical records well we've got the chiropractor records in minutes that change in what is a change on well here's a review the medical records exchange on a conversation three minutes before the deposition of the commission there's more that up evidence the commission to look at that hypothetical was on glades his work activities so fortunate that he wasn't sophisticated enough to fertilise to his doctors into any body else but nonetheless the medical records document that he did not have an ongoing back probably did not have an ongoing white leg ridiculous apathy until april of two thousand and six it is acknowledged that he had a preexisting condition but as you know any artfully and certainly not oh clearly stating that he felt his work activities were caused by repetitive trauma he just knew it was related to work and that's what he said and that's all that the law requires a long require condition was related to repetitive activity and they discounted his testimony and she's out of it because he was unable to work i think that's apparent in the commission's decision and i think that's inappropriate i think it's inappropriate because in that sense the only people who can benefit from this act are people who are knowledgeable of all kinds of accidents all kinds of medical conditions and who can properly notify their employers of those conditions and what can what might bring a certain conditions about i think the commission didn't give him that hearing and we would ask that you would