runs on behalf of seems building technologies justice is this case comes before you as both a mixed question of fact and law manifest weak case in the case alleging error as a matter of law of the first few with the allegation of manifest we and it goes as follows the first is an argument made that there was a stipulation to accident relative to the back injury in this case there was a stipulation relative to an injury to the knee in this case which is not disputed never has been disputed when the accident occurred to the back is disputed whether it occurred on the twenty one two thousand and one when the claimant was lifting a pipe or whether it manifest itself during that period of time when he was in physical therapy after surgery or repair of that need resulting in a torn men counsel for claiming urges that having stipulated to accidently stipulated to the accident having occurred to the back in the days of the injury of lifting might not nothing could be further from the truth my reply brief cite specifically to an illinois supreme court case are now the allegation of violation pursues me of manifest weight results from four unrebutted statements from the claimant himself after hearing upon which the treating physician relies informing his causal connection in the first test to do with i felt a muscle in my back when i lifted the pipe on a twenty one two thousand and one he did in fact  there's just nothing in the medical records corroborate done at all it isn't rebutted it's on falsifiable but it doesn't make it true the next has to do with the not rebutted testimony from the claimant himself relative to the manifestation of the back injury in physical therapy while recovering in this prescribe the course of care post the surgery statement is that he felt a blow out again showed between six or seven times he complained of mild back pain mild back while riding on an exercise my bicycle approximately seven to nine months after the eight twenty one  that the treating physician accepted for his causal connection in relates to the purported statement by the claimant to the treating physician that he was released to return to work on a twenty one two thousand and two because he wanted to go back to work because he wanted to go back to again on rebutted but on report of all but not necessarily a true statement and in fact a lie by the records themselves a lie by the records themselves and further belied by the fact that this particular patient of this particular treating physician underwent a physical therapy program at one facility where he did in fact feel some pain in his l which physical therapy then was changed to another facility at the direction of the treating physician which in further physical therapy records shows seems to have come to baseline income to baseline says which was then ratified within a day or two by the treating physician supposedly again with the on reported on the bottle but not necessarily a true statement of the claim that it all occurred because i wanted to go back to work on a p r and basis a p r and basis to return as needed which does not necessarily mean causal connection so you saying there is no medical opinions in the record support the causal connection what about dr renz doctor read supports it but he relies on these four i've gone through three of them were bought it and on rebuttal but not necessarily true statements of the claimant himself none of which are contemporaneously verified within the training records as before they are in the record clearly when the claimant testified they are in the record when dr of arrested testified evidence deposition after his perform surgery but the only causal connection that exists excuse me contemporaneous with all of this is a statement on the first or second visit of dr lorenzo five nine two thousand and two in which he said the back pain is related the need in the sense that it occur as well i that's my word or is a natural consequence of the recovery from the knee but he does not testify to a causal connection as it relates to well there's the claim that it did and in fact in fact the rehabilitation i can read is causal connections his causal connection statement which is actually contained throughout his deposition in various places but most importantly i'm page forty five  choose one way and yet another which we argue is not a valid but in fact flawed puzzle connection state where he says in response to my question what is the particular inciting event causing the bat my suspicion which i me to tell silver cross hospital records he'd look at or any other records into he began treating with doctorates he told me what the need was really bugging him so he wanted that to be taken care of so we ha and then he goes on and he says and then he had another episode an episode that happened in physical therapy so that's the only one i can testify to which would appear to be a possible connection steve only as relates to so when did it happen when did it happen would make a difference are going to make it do it does make a difference because there's another leap to the curves right after he releases into very heavy physical duty and that is there's absolutely no treatment whatsoever for and that is this i back her pain i was in pain between eight one two thousand and one thousand two thousand and two and when i returned to dr renz on two twenty two thousand and three there's nothing in the record other than his statement and there's nothing in the record upon which the causal connection statement was made from dr brown's except his admission he looked at nor the records and that he accepted by history this particular claimants presentation which is otherwise contradicted throughout the medical records physical therapy and treatment records from the entire course here more than a manifest weak case but rather likewise an error of law is what occurred with the stipulation sheets on these to consolidate cases there's much scrushy in the briefs relative to what was stipulated to and what wasn't it can't really be spewed however to which this court said well there's deference clearly it's uniquely the province of the industrial commission of the workers compensation commission to find what the period of t t is but what you're not free to do commission is disregard your own rules and what happened in this case is one of the parties came to the commission and stipulated to a period of temperate total disability of eighty four weeks sorry party you have to pay eighty four weeks was the rule of this commission otherwise fundamental fairness prejudice the so we generous nature of the commission itself is called into question and so in the circumstances one thing i'd like to point out that this argument is not about  not about having reread my brief this morning i think it bears clarification certainly in light of this court's decision in hostile news recently as a month ago many of the bar recognized that cook in the purported extra degree of scrutiny of it should be allowed when there's a reversal of the arbitrator in the commission was overruled rule long ago through a series of cases the argument of siemens is not that in fact it should be extra scrutiny in this case possibly put that to rest for good in told or some amendment in springfield on that particular point but what the commission is not free to do and what this court said in washington most definitely is not  disregarded so and rules rooted to stipulations and that the parties are bound by them when they come for the commission otherwise a body that is a fact finder that is not bound by the decisions of the arbitrator but  not hear these cases tabula rasa must far follow its own rules it's clear that was submitted at arbitration was nature and extent of injury amongst others a t t period was alleged e this counsel for employer must have known that there was an allegation of a t t period in these two consolidated cases well yes that's true but a fair assessment of the record that we had before the case was tried merely by asking the question ought to answer the question same between the decision of the arbitrator and the decision of the commission the parties in light of this court's ruling in walker might have decided to act differently might have decided that in fact they cannot they cannot award temporary full disability on a claim that there was a stipulation for to the detriment of the other one failing proof failing and enough the record conversation which obviously i can't talk about because that would be towards the record so i won't go however having said that what we're faced with this afternoon is that the scrum respondent who says i argued these fixed before the arbitrator and i won i argued these facts before the commission and i lost i argued these facts before the circuit court and i lost and now i come to you gentlemen and want to argue the same fix him if you step similar to holy writ they must be accurate they must be the arbiter of what's truth and what's not even though the petitioner never never laid his hand on any of those records counsel points out in his brief and he'll lose two  found that the arbitrators inclusions were wrong yes it was tried out a consolidated basis yes there were two requests for hearing forms and those requests for a hearing forms in fact one b which is what the arbitrator characterize  situation to the commission and the commission said no the evidence demonstrates that this man suffered an injury to his knee and then the sick quality of the injury resulted in the need for further medical intervention with regard work i determined that he couldn't do any more structural damage but i cautioned him i told him it would be he would probably have some pain and i gave him medication under our stand should section a rights remain thirty months sixteen months in the issue of any one with thirty months to come back to the commission say you know what if the sat in this case you made a finding but the situation has changed how would th circumstances be any different here the analysis of the commission in this award reversing the findings in modifying the findings of arbitrator peterson are well within the purview of the law and there is no issue of law is a question of who did they believe whose opinion did they accept how did they interpret those medical records this should be a f be as a pro forma matter as a regular written practice of the commission stipulation sheets are read back to council it's not solely a manifest week issue when the commission disregards its own rules when it stipulations themselves clearly have no indication that there was a reservation times rights case of the commissioner and remember well i know that's what the commission did the commission disregard its own rules is our argument