there is an issue in this case of an intervening accident also whether the intervening accident caused a new back injury or didn't cause a new back injury we still say that this fisher began treating for his back on august fifteenth two thousand and seven a month before he claimed it work related accident no one has suggested that there was not a work related accident september fourteenth two thousand and seven he had bruising to his thigh and leg and those have no one has ever refuted that what we are saying is if you had a serious enough back injury that was any different from the august fifteenth visit a month prior there to you would have gone to the doctor prior to eleven weeks later i november thirtieth two thousand and after congress his family physician that had been treating him prior to the date of the accident and after kind it's a physician who you saw on august fifteenth exactly a month before for a otherwise in this case when there were so many other choices they could have made and each of those choices all qualified you know the orthopedic surgeon fullbright he did the m r i the c t the bone flexion scan all this intervening accident of february fourteenth two thousand and eight now i'm not suggesting that the intervening accident did necessarily do anything addition to the court what i'm saying is it is there well it may be a distraction there's nothing between august two thousand and seven and the intervening accident february fourteenth two thousand and eight suggesting that there was a traumatic injury to the petitioner stack the only clear fact that we have relative to the petitioners back is that a month before he alleged the september except he was in about his back now why can't he go we are month before the date of the accident saying my back hurt but all of a sudden it becomes critical the day after the accident and he didn't s possibly be the natural progression of an arthritic condition it must be something that we can pin on a respondent in the state i think that the commission overreached i think they overreached by overturning arbitrator decision in this case when she had the opportunity to see the petitioner testify to see a surprise examination to see this witness testify to see our hear yours witness testify and to review all of the evidence she had the opportunity to see the credibility on your faces the facial expressions she had the opportunity to see them impeached by some of their inconsistent statements for example the petitioner entries witnesses were really bent on say we were never given the opportunity to take this back there's something before that didn't occur and really the manifest weight of the evidence test here have to be looked at by this court has a finding reversing the commission suggesting that there is not reported both back pain and history on his report that he filled out even his office indicated they experienced back pain and that he was going to try to work out we talked about practicality of the situation my client work we're tracking for you know anything about trucking firms people come and go like real appears so he wanted to  the point is the point is the practical situation is my client would keep his job very good if you look at what he said to his boss who's going to work through it he was going to continue he told dr fulbright i gotta get back to work or i'm that referred to give them so the question is can any rational trier of fact check support the decision that was by the commission if you look at the commission decision and you look at your  betrayers decision they're only different with one respect both of them find an accident both of treatment related up until the intervening acts the commission differs with arbitrator neal in that intervening ac he was consistent with his histories of linking it to the temper two thousand and seven x we have that consistency we have a consistency also with the functional pasty assessment that was done with social security we have consistencies with it right but there is sufficient evidence and if you look at the medical records in how they appall something happening it's temperate two thousand and  testimony that they couldn't take time off of work was also destroyed and the fact that over the next two weeks for mr garrett said he was helping him load number trucks mr perry was on vacation and that shown in the calendar since you have so we have to talk about that we have to talk about the fact that he was a happy labor worker a tree september fourteenth two thousand and seven and may second two thousand and eight without missing a single day of work except for his personal vacation or anything to his hair it was never a medical record indicating that there was swelling or anything hysterical numbers fine and that's important here because it goes back to a lack of causation evidence and insufficient evidence not to work anymore he could be off and so security disability and it was all our no serious fall from the prior september which made no sense because there was zero medical evidence to back that up again we would ask you to