here today because we believe the commission's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence as we are aware the decision to be against a manifest weight in opposite conclusion must clearly be apparent the opposite conclusion in this case is that the court also held in that case that circumstantial evidence can be used to prove that he caused the nexus between an accident and the claimants injury in this case the conclusion that the petition was injured as testified when he asked why not to do it and that was on page of the record page one  back forty five days from now and say you don't get time for we were nine i filled on the steers and i really hurt my leg but i didn't tell anybody and i didn't go for medical treatment guess what the commission can turn around and say of so if you have to justify the explanation that is supported by the medical records then that point in time they should make it to address that issue by not addressing that point then i did we don't know it today acknowledge that point existed at all shows that either they did they miss this records or they didn't consider this an awful they didn't miss anything they didn't believe they didn't believe him because nobody witnessed the accident he didn't tell anybody but he didn't come for dr comfort about and we would argue that he connected to the medical test specifically with dr weil michael's medical testimony he did connect to that the question here in the way to look at the way i look at this issue is when an employer for obama never mentioned the treating physicians records you can't see why the commission would question his credibility when the way i would look at this is for exam from this neuro is that if we look at it from this fine fact he didn't tell dr comfort makes more see you sure yeah what is an admission of an obvious when the mission of a statement could be viewed here in some ways similar to putting in something totally wrong like mentioning as a female or matching something else that makes no sense a correlation to it for evidence outside of what he told the doctors and what's going on that stimulates from this in some cases i take basically that we can't sort of stands or falls on the claimant's credibility doesn't to a degree yes but here's the one thing i would like to mention th record and again on page one or two of the record on page one or two he said i see mr summary five or ten mess and that's about it then he goes on to say what his job these are the time when he's there he states on page one or two actually most of the time i'm in the the reason why i would argue we should prevail in this case if we take out all the employers everything else is is that when he does talk about it it pops up where finally caught up with dr ronald michael his testimony is very clear how it happens if you compare the testimony he gave to dr wrong mike on july not accurate compared i and had a serious issue with his back so he went to work the next day and reported an injury and then goes to the doctor and there begins the story of a work actually the court was correct to ask questions of my own and i think about the chronology i did that before the hearing that was in deposition testimony that's why he couldn't come in and say he named any one of these individuals that he did report in a timely fashion again i think this court's correct to point out that we first went to the doctor he had no report of injury in fact the only reference is to his twenty seven claim and the arbitrator certainly was within their discretion the commission as well based on a factual determination to find that this gentleman did not meet his burden of evidence and at this level this court certainly does not have the burden to determine whether or not claim this was true for a lot simply whether the arbitrator in commission had a reasonable basis they certainly did so based on the absence of cooperating evidence and i would ask for an affirmation  in relation to the two thousands of inquiry it was resolved in two thousand and petition to testify on the record that he returned back to his job and do the same job as reform which the heavy lifting chop in for two thousand a toll now in this incident occurred two thousand and eleven  for what happened to start to degenerating degenerating degenerating what did he do he went to see the doctors and the doctors found it was a problem he went to reported it explain where is related to that is the thing and there was no intravenous thing if you look at the record was no car accidents there was in him like building a house or doing anything of the nature anything which would require heavy manual labor equipment to what his job was in need of a preexisting condition yes but he went through more than three years without treatment that's a think doing the same job he was doing before that accident we make a council argument he raises the specter that it was only after the doctor told him that he had a serious problem that he reported the accident with your response to that my response to that is that when he realizes was no longer a minor problem do he went back to report as well for a month it was just the sheer coincidence for a month it's very minor doesn't trouble him at all no big deal a couple days after his attacker all of a sudden it got worse no it was to generate that's why i kept seeing the doctor to the point where he couldn't function anymore and that's when he got he reported it and he testifies on the record how a week or two later he was driving to michigan no problems on the trip nothing wrong in trip but the pain was just getting worse and worse he has stopped every fifteen twenty minutes and then he comes back and then he sees a doctor figures out what's wrong and then goes forward and tells them this relate to this but what we're asking for is is either one of two things you know we ask you to remanded back to the commission and ask them to consider all this evidence to show a new decision or fine for the petitioner and ask that