your honour's i believe that if you look at the records immediately before the petitioners alleged accident you'll note that he had a recommendation from dr espinosa for surgery to his lumbar spine you'll note that he also was treating with the dr bernard you know garcia and dr garcia spoke spanish with him and he would complain about his spine you'll know that before this alleged accident at work that when this recommendation was made for lumbar surgery by dr spinoza if there was no inciting event noted and if there was nothing in there that indicated that it was something that was work related or something outside of any activity in fact it was a condition that the on the thirty first went to excel occupational health this is two days after the alleged accident be present a beer and he said i have a laceration to my left elbow no mention of any sort of work injury to his spine of the t i go through the litany of different locations he shows up at dr garcia who previously had complained about his back season three times and no mention of any spine injury and in fact would you say he saw the doctor see a doctor see it three times he didn't see those tires for any work related treatment there for diabetes this other medical problems that he is correct sure enough there on a day when he was seeing dr darcy before the work accident he would complain whatever his problems were he would complain them and there is no mention of any spine problems from january twenty ninth two thousand and five until june sixth two thousand five hundred see dr garcia so thoroughly every time he goes to see his doctor for a sinus problems with his back doesn't even he doesn't even address it again i think that's part of the bias that he went into when he wanted to write his decision he he wanted to find his person he noted in his decision that this person was a gentle individual that he was an educator and he correct correct so what does that have to do with the appeal from the commission what you're i believe that when the commission affirms the arbitrator's decision as it has here it is adopting the arbitrator situation regarding credibility right and you can do exactly and i believe that when the good that they also disregarded the evidence they also do this we're going to manifest way to the evidence in this situation when the petitioner finally talks about his back problems to dr darcy on june sixth two thousand and five medical record will show complains of surgery that for some reason he had undergone only known to him why he had undergone surgery to his spine aren't so and he actually goes in and june sixth two thousand and five there's no history of a work accident there just says he's got a backdrop of june thirteenth two thousand f back injury and coincidentally the petitioner files an application for just one a claim on june twenty two two thousand five hundred twenty six june twenty three twenty seven two thousand five not he's got a back injury that's related to his job well he just filed an application for adjust playing someone obviously put it into his brain that he has he worked injury and none of the medical records supported that before that on the application for just twenty or so your orders if i made to find this petition june twenty seventh two thousand from the court was disregard of the histories contained in all of the medical records between january twenty ninth two thousand and five given to spanish speaking individuals by spanish speaking person until june twenty seventh two thousand five hundred much disregard petition had a recommendation for the same spinal surgery according to dr anderson prior to jenner twenty nine two thousand and five which he for some reason decided he didn't want to undergo and least was on the fence about going when he first saw dr bradley when he saw back the petitioner at some point decided this was going to be a work related injury and in fact there was no medical history that supported that contention to find in favor of this petitioner you have to disregard the evidence the testimony  regen lotta who is the human resources person at chicago international when she spoke with this petitioner immediately after this alleged accident in twenty nine two thousand and five you told her i lacerated my help i last read before can say anything about a spy and she said are you sure you didn't hurt anything else that correcting or anything else wasn't until june this all happens about june about the time perhaps when he files his application for just one point now and calls her back and says by the way are you folks going to be paying for my back condition she said what  questioning that was also in the record i think that being that being one of the invaders who was there and actually witnessing it i was quite frankly shocked but from that standpoint the decision to shock was or something wrong with the arbitrator as the additional question your honor i think the tenor with which he asked it and the further with which he asked them led me to understand that this was not going to be a situation where he was going to review all the medical records objectively and in fact the decision supports my contentions a decision supports my commission in the circuit court all found and they were just the arbitrator was the one to put one person who had the opportunity to independently view the testimony of every witness in this case he is the one person who had the opportunity to review the medical records and review the testimony of view this case as a question as to whether the accident that is undisputed in this case aggravated my client's creevy igs previous previous and well documented back injury one of the things opposing counsel to get something over and over again is perhaps you could opine on this issue is why the claimant allegedly never told all of these treating physicians and doctors about this was somehow connected to his job well first of all what we need to understand about this case respectfully is that my client was suffering from a severe and serious back injury for a long period of time we did myth that he suffered a back injury or had a back injury even before the accident we had that back so he's always feeling pain in fact this is why i believe in it in my room to be evidence that doctoring anderson actually helps us in our in our case because dr anderson understand says that there was no question that mr calhoun the suffering pain during this whole period of time he just disputes the fact that my client's spine condition became worse so we understand during this and he was requesting some medical treatment we all know it's that's documented in the record so he doesn't know himself why this is going on well it isn't until he has an m r i and the our eyes shows that there is a new finding and that is able to say hey ok the reason why you're having some increased pain is because you had an accident and that accident has caused a new injury in your spot on a new love and that's why you need you for sure need surgery now and that's why we i have an accident they can't get around the fact that there is an m r i from before the accident and there's an m r i after the accident they can't get around that evidence and the commission looked at that evidence the arbitrator looked at that evidence it was clear clear that there was a new and different herniation and a new level in his spine in fact if you take a look at it there's a new radiologist a doctor who reviews that m r i and says in the m r i there is a evidence before your honor's to say that there is not a new injury they can't say that all they can do is impugn my client and the arbitrator and the commission and kind of throw a lot of them on all of this ca january twentieth two thousand and five and then went to meet me old emergency room six days later on june twenty sixth two thousand and five complaining of a lower back and leg pain without a history of trauma is therefore logical to question the accuracy of the emergency room history think i can understand perhaps that there was no back injury there was no injury but they can't see that because dr intercity himself says that my client was suffering pain my client is suffering from a severe back injury he can't ignore that son translated for his father and denied any trauma said that he used back pain started four days before june eighth two thousand and five every traitor conveniently doesn't even address that you can't b if he starts to address those kinds of lieutenants they become big issues and if you take five months worth of not giving a history of any sort of back problems number one and not even saying that you hurt yourself on the job if you did have a back problem for five months after the