o's this is our appeal of a circuit court decision which affirmed the commission decision of january th two thousand and nineteen which the ny are petitions under sections nine hundred and eighty and eighty of the workers compensation d act it's our contention pursuant to this appeal that there's absolutely no evidence to support the commission's decision and that is against the manifest weight of the evidence and should be reversed and remanded the commission in denying the claims based on credibility completely ignored two things and one is the nature of the holst of the condition holst arbitration and the diagnosis and also commission completely ignored the medical opinions in evidence regarding causal connection but just in time to slip a reason was the commission i want to get your impression as to the specific reasons they are to kill aided as to why they denied the petition in addition to the veracity issues they point to a significant undisputed gap in the medical treatment records regarding the claimant apparently that the st medical record to address the care so what's with that significant gap well they they were yes the commission was pointed to that as a problem to a but it's our contention if you look at the diagnosis position that even without expert medical opinion and even with time to get diagnosis was impingement from a cage that was found to be causally related to the work accident in the them for purposes of examination and record review and those doctors that's dr shannon field and that's the truth feinberg and both of those doctors were number one you commission was troubled by i met but the doctor in addition to being a physician was also his brother and it was just a term and that the records that he did have with that you offer  but again it's our it's our position that if you look at the actual evidence there is hardware complications which is in the risk of surgery yes they were diagnosed not until two thousand and seven but there is no evidence whatsoever of an intervening event and you don't need and intervening events have hardware migration hardware complications that's a risk of alarm for you jen and also both of defendant one of the doctors that treated him document that he and his assistant observed the claimant outside the office in the parking lot running around the car telling his mom how to park the car and walking fine without any obvious pain or discomfort however when he then entered dr dominguez office he was limping and walking very slowly so what do you make of then this is the doctor's own observation well what i make was it was agreed by all the doctors that that hardware that was used in the february nd surgery was impinging so yes the commission found the plaintiff not credible and the whole decision is looking at things like what you referenced about dr demento is it as far as attacking his credibility but i respectfully submit just because somebody is not credible doesn't mean they're not entitled to benefits and if you look at the evidence in this case you all of the medical expenses surgeries were related to the repairing of that circumstance with the cage which is already been found to be causally related in  position that this five credibility issues granted the commission found not credible and they point the whole decision to texas credibility it can't be disputed that he had hard work complications from a defendant's own examinee positions shan't be reviewed all of it they review they review all the records it's in their report they knew about the tank yeah they did not say you had to have an intervening event to  to find any evidence that the condition the defective surgery and the repair of that surgery was not causally related to his work accident they sent the original fi also connect and so so the question of whether he's not he said nine surgeries altogether seven since the original arbitration and again there's evidence which the commission didn't even get taller because they denied the whole case and cause so they never addressed additional temporary full disability which is going to be substantial with the additional surgeries and they also never address whether there's a material increase in permanency from the sixty of a man that was awarded in and i didn't goes to t t d and increased permanency but it doesn't go to lack of medical expenses i'm i've searched this record i can't find a single thing in this record that suggests that his medical is not causally related to the failed surgery the object of testimony says the object of test say so and the doctors your i would also argue that that it's found to be causally related condition then clearly the medical flows he's the commission would have to determine what of it seven hundred and eighty five thousand dollars and clearly the temporary total this ability to be causally related  e to be significant here is the question of whether there's an increase in permanency permanency after seven more surgeries and after after the arbitration that's a factual question that the commission didn't get to so so that's explain that to you this is a gentleman who didn't trade for three years during that period of time he was lifting weights in excess of two hundred and fifty pounds he was a credit and incredible person who didn't tell all the doctors what was going on for instance when he went to dr bennett and dr aflatoxin he told them that it had no improvement since the february two thousand surgery absolutely not true if you look at the records of dr de fazio from the st hearing in two thousand and four in specifically on july nd two thousand and one he told dr de fazio that he was one hundred percent better de fazio immediately after that phone call that was done in july of two thousand and one it's just there is no mention of the case encroaching into the program both doctors saying it was it was solid and then six years later or more there appears to be a problem with the hardware why  doing numerous squats as much as one hundred and thirty five pounds on the squat machine in the videos of two thousand there are three videos in the original hearing two thousand and two in two thousand and four and i believe the squats were confined to the two thousand and four hearing at that point he's not trading there's no evidence apart where misalignment there's no  evidence of nerve compression so i do think there's quite a bit to say that the medical is not related the commission did is there is there any medical opinion click on that said it's not related dr fineberg judge actually said that his opinion on conservation was based upon his belief that there was a legal conclusion that everything was condition is not related to the accident in fact he said i'm not even sure that the back is related to the original accident in december of one thousand nine hundred and ninety five dr sam felt that the other expert that was used before i was involved in this case he didn't have accurate information he did not have information about that's not my question my question is is there any medical opinion in this record there at the damaged cage or whatever he has the instrumentality is not causally related to the recall i don't remember he even went so far at one point when i said is it a fair statement that you don't know the names of all the doctors that you've seen and what you told them it is the response was i don't there any evidence in the record that this medical relating to the failed fusion is not causally related to the operation which the commission already fallen was causally related no i don't think there is there prophet he's no prognosticator he had no basis for the opinion so it's not just the opinions of the providers but i think when you put the total package together your honor that isn't credible the medical records leave open the question of why did the hardware fail the none of the doctors including dr sam fell and i believe the commission's decision that his condition was not causally related to the accident that he is incredible in doctor carlson incredible and the sudden resumption of treatment a in st draws a reasonable inference that something else has happened i don't know why they don't have to adopt the medical opinions of the of these doctors they looked at the overall facts they looked and that you know i don't think there is any question as record that there was a failure of the fusion what appears at least in my opinion your honor a reasonable inference that it was due to the squats that he was doing as even admitted by dr carlson the fact that he went six years with not six years i'm sorry three years three months without any medical attention that it was something else that occurred it doesn't have to relight back to the original surgery and with the would submit that the decision should be affirmed in its entirety part of the hearing there's no evidence of any jim activity after that and there's certainly no evidence of any intervening events that would cause the hardware impingement it was found and as far as the hardware impingement itself if it was found in two thousand and seven that can't be disputed at kazan every doctor agrees was was impinging and causing the compression of the nerve growth and that's what started the avalanche of  two thousand and seven when the surgery was in two thousand it's but nevertheless it's still hardware from that surgery where there's a final decision was possibly related to surmise that the commission did that there must be  it when an object fell on him and just there's no evidence at all of that and so you know respectfully submit that despite the fact that commission found him not credible despite the fact that there were credibility issues in the in the initial arbitration hearing that the commission in this decision pointed to the arbitrators certain you know the arbitrators opinion back in two thousand and four nonetheless you overwhelming  now all the evidence it's accepted speculate that there are some intervening event supports a causal relationship so we respectfully submit and again it's our position they didn't address the factual issue of medical bills or temporary pole which which i was correctly submit are clear should be awarded and the increase in permanency is another issue sixty of a man but it's also a factual issue i respectfully submit for a commission to determine