petition that dealt with a low back condition and a forecast an award for future medical dealing with a low back surgery the commission decided this in a reversal of the arbitrator's decision but i'd like to address is the basis for the commission decision very briefly and it does not deal with any fired expert such as dr player does not deal with dr brende it focuses in the commit commission award decision dealt with dr n c on some records an dealt with the lack of credibility on the part of the petitioner in her testimony that was put forth as a basis for why she should be compensated because i got a low back problem and also it addresses the lack of credibility on the part of doctor who runs his opinions without being laboring it is just the commission decision itself nails that it goes to judge scuse me the two are the commissioners went through the record and strictly focused in on dr n c arms roughly eight year period where he treated this person for low back problems including medication including a tens unit but i specifically asked the petitioner on cross examination  hearing on arbitration about these matters she says well gee whiz fat was for generalized arthritic changes or arthritic problems i don't even know what a tens unit is when you go through growth is cited in the record and in the brief you can see that on talk with her not only about why she was getting medication over that eight year period up until one month before the accident he discussed with her on several occasions the fact that the tens unit really wasn't providing her a lot of relief so it was maqueda bill that she did not know what a tens unit was it was not credible that she had no bone back problems before this event then in regard to dr lorenza sapan yes specifically on direct the last question essentially that was put to him was in regard to his opinion why do you believe that the surgical intervention that you recommended as a possibility you believe that that would be related to the accident answer and this is a page two thirty four the transcript riders that you know because the patient had no pain and no treatment in regard to her lower back and he went on and said the cause caused this fall caused this problem on december sixth two thousand and ten on cross examination in the following few pages pages two thirty five of the record i went into what did he know and what is the basis for his opinion and he said flat out on page two thirty five of the record i think that this accident cost that activated cost per problem based strictly on history i take her at her word and then i inventory what he looked at he looked at only his own records and interviewed this woman and just like an arbitration that was his opinion was not based on the whole history of the preexisting problems correct not even a hypothetical it was she had it to paraphrase  pristine health condition before this fall down on december sixth twenty ten as he said she didn't have any pain or any treatment regarding to lower back the basis for his opinion is incomplete on a good day so when we went through the review process the emphasis and the commission caught it was this she had a significant mole back problem and this look this fall down on december sixth two thousand and ten was inconsequential again dr the rense his opinions are basically void of any support when you look at the records from the treating doctor at the end of the day it's now a church panel would like it's not what i would like it's not when players opinions supports the commission's decision no he doesn't know commission say she failed failed to prove causal connection with the commission but in regard to him being a hired gun and not knowing what was going on here yes but the arguments being made by the petitioner that let's use dr will read a skinny doctor player's opinions on the argument that there's aggravation of a preexisting condition and that must be what the commission decided who they are didn't see that was reverse the commission if you can on some else we may respond commission decision doesn't rely on player here and there's a difference i mean the commission's decision dr player admitted there was a causal connection for a short period of time and the doctor player said she had a cervical strain she had a lumbar you look at the actual note or the history from the hospitals they share an arm the second under impression and i believe this is it's actually page eight not my grief but opposing counsel  year before this years but where does she say she didn't she says it's my understanding that it was related to arthritis and if you look at the records it is related to arthritis april ninth of twenty ten well they are chronic low back pain the p works and we while she is on her other arthritis medication but it's given by her other doctor which is what she testified to i had it out to him peoria microcassette was with dr n c r was refilling every month because i needed it refilled every month there's not in the medical records i don't know if that's why she was going through him to get refills but in the medical records it does consistently show that he had relating her low back pain to arthritis she turned to the understanding and as he documents in the record for the purpose of this really don't write it and that's what she's testifying to she didn't say i've never had a low back pain she does describe how this low back pain is different but she says yes i have arthritis and yes i'm getting percocet and then the medical records also supported here that the percocet was controlling her pain which is why i believe the manifest with the evidence supports a different conclusion here because if you look at the medical records and the commission's decision and as i pointed out in the circuit court argument the part of the commission's decision the evidence shows petitioners prior a low back condition was are in fact adopting player here i mean i don't think that the commission is adopting player i think they're going down a completely different line with the evidence that isn't supported if they adopted player why wouldn't they just say perspec i don't think the commission does say here is supported by the very briefly i think the court understands this case on the issue of what dr players opinions about to the brain stray woman the record shows lost no time for work from the date of the accident three year old will lead an emphasize if you look in the record you will see the first off work slip comes on january sixth the day she goes off to the hospital for treatment the doctor player said has nothing to do with what this case is about again this is a nineteen be a petition his court went out of your going with a demand for payment of a lot