it's just no ledgers there the decision of the commission should be reversed through the reason that the actual inclusions based on the of the commission made that petitioner was riding a write a motorcycle the only evidence of motorcycle riding is a d v d video and  and the three minute forty two second mark on the second disc it shows an identifiable motorcycle rider from the rear riding in traffic the gender of the rider is not visible the make and model of the motorcycle is not visible the identity of the rider is not visible the license plate number is not as i'm curious as to your opening conclusion that the video surveillance of the alleged motorcycle writing incident was a critical part of this case there's no reference to the video surveillance of the conclusions of law set forth requires the commission affirmed in adapting the air before his decision but it also failed to make any reference to the video surveillance what can you point to that said is that that was a critical part of the decision we're on page thirteen based on the surveillance appellants testimony in the history given to the now and the response of expert that the palace is not a credible now four or five years ago although he has actually done very well since that time until this recent injury about six days later he sees dr a pill so the nerves that exiting through a tight space you put it actually along the spine where you have some type of movement with the space becomes even more constricted almost as if it's being hit with a hammer since the nerve  very little reserve since there's no room in the north takes up some of the force of the axial load there is an inflammatory response inflammation leads to the onset of pain which when we record is scientific his pain is due to an aggravation of a clinical syndrome which we call treating doctor both treating doctors to get completely opposite history for the more petitioner testified at trial that he did well after the injections and nine hundred ninety nine to answer your question not in this patient it did not happen dr phil does not explain why this patient did not return to baseline it's just his opinion out in space without a basis any specific part of the anatomy in his back is continuing to cause his problems dr it is just doctors obviously beer opinion well as i understand the most doctors agree there's nothing on that m r i that was caused from a fall it is both memorized show nothing that was caused by a fall they actually are they give the neutral point it doesn't help or hurt my client bit it really doesn't make it a red herring dr propellant would be reduced there's nothing in the current m r i that shows any pathology caused by the fall it that the difference is dr zoe makes a leap of faith with out any basis saying because there's no change in the m r i's that they only show a degenerative condition conclusion dr zaldy doesn't explain why this person this particular person should return to based on why his symptoms are not permanent he just says they are because he says they are he doesn't offer a basis to support his opinion or if one of snaps his opinion one has to accept the opinion that every single m are you still able to ride or cycle to your two thousand and four work accident not anymore i can't ride and why can't you ride because it's painful to sit on it so the first question was do you ride a motorcycle do you assess the second question was are you still able to ride a motorcycle after you're all for work and it's an answer not anymore i can't ride are you still able to ride and asks are you riding presently it's in the present tense the question was never asked here being ridden a evidence in response to i don't want to get too much into this motorcycle riding thing while that is in the statement of facts of the arbitrator's decision it is not mentioned anywhere in the conclusions of law it is doesn't reported to doctors will be the first time he saw that he had annual flare ups between one hundred ninety nine and two thousand and four he testified that wasn't true counsel some of the the histories taken by the treating physicians were exactly opposite i would disagree with that and now he is symptomatic after all for when the record shows that that is not the case he did have flare ups he reported dr patel of that he had been relatively pain free and really as pointed out by  in a progression of these symptoms or in a traumatic injury it's just not there are no objective findings and so further answer your question that his credibility comes into play when it comes to his reporting of the symptoms you know we're going based on his word if you want to believe him but he's been pain free days from ninety nine zero four and now he continues to have pain and the objective evidence shows the opposite also his pain complain as pointed out by doctors all the in his third group work don't really match the degenerative findings on the m r i so even what he's complaining about doesn't match with the objective findings are it's our position that from a manifest weight standpoint council has failed to undermine doctors in all these opinion the commission was correct and certainly justified in lying on doctors author's opinion to support his opinions we have the m r i is that we've talked about not well founded in fact at one point he said the only way he'd be able to tell of the changes on a number caused by an accident were would be if he had them right one hour before the accident and then an m r i one hour after the accident  fact and i brought up the whole issue of the motorcycle riding his it's my response brief and here you give it to a great deal in his brief so he said i pointed it out like i was pointing it out because he brought  was causing it and that's not what we have to do as our side of the fence what doctors all he does do very effectively is point out why there was a temporary aggravation and not a permanent probation and in this case you know he's entitled to his compensation for the while the temporary aggravation is occurring we paid c t and t t for that period was awarded and we paid the medical model this temporary aggravation was happening when he had another flare up and it was caused by this fall we're we're not seeing it decision based on the opinions of doctors albeit the m r i findings the testimony of dr who pill were getting the nature of the condition as well as the causation opinions and the questionable veracity of mr lisa thank you shows no pathology caused by accident so reviewing the other prior m r i isn't going to reveal any other information and i also like to point out  consider a surgical referral to another doctor it's not a referral for surgery