causation finding that the the treating surgeon dr justin brown's opinions in support of their being in causal connection between the july work accident and the need with question that was posed to him the question being in your opinion was the accident that resulted in the surgery costly connected or what was that the connected to the need for that surgery and it was in response to that question that doctor should both say that in his opinion the prevailing factor which ultimately the petitioner's condition a bill being our arm whether in fact there is the work injury played a part in aggravate that preexisting condition and that then the court said it doesn't have to be the sole cause for the responded first for some thirty years and the fact that his job duties required bending squatting and lifting and those types of activities constrain the back but the most telling part of this and what i think takes dr brown's testimony out of the range of speculative ness is the history in this case my client worked for thirty years as a mechanic doing this kind of work that involved lifting bending that's why there is not one iota of evidence testimony or medical records in this case that indicated that prior to july eighteenth two thousand and eight my client had any history of back problems there's no medical records ever introduced at trial prior medical records there are no workout claims involving a back injury that my client had prior to this point so why couldn't the mission have adapted their viewpoint because you're an er doctor should pose opinions are the words shaded perhaps the based upon an improper shaded his opinion testimony because he was looking at a cause that was a primary he was looking at a lot of our system gnosis as being the primary cause of my client he was of the opinion that my my client may have had a lumbar strain but he recovered from that within a short period of time following the initial accident in fact  he my client was released to return to work six weeks after the accident and was discharged from treatment at the company doctor midwest occupational medicine some six weeks after that my client's condition in terms of back pain and leg pain did not end when he was discharged are when he went back to full all duty no restrictions his condition program last and that that i don't think can be ignored based on chain of events especially when we have a claimant such as mr weir who had a doctor's testimony that his opinion is given based on the recent history of medical certainty does lend to be to the conclusion that that is a non speculative opinion that he's given there is no requirement that every doctor's deposition in a work comp case they have to preface their opinions that they're based upon a reason to believe that medical certainly so long as there is a sufficient foundation for those for those opinions in this particular case dr brown's opinions once it if you look at them in total and not just one after the other if you look at his final opinion and that was that based upon the fact that my client never had any problems with this fact prior to this accident that let lent to him support for his opinion that this accident was at least a contributing cause to the aggravation of this fr rove we finally get a hypothetical in which deals with never had back problems before but dr brown never said i think that is related the best he could say was  and all i kept saying was it was possible and one point he said you know i think it was like you know his back was so bad he had to know sort of and that was ninety percent of the problem i think maybe ten percent was due to the the work going through but i'm there is no there is an indication though getting better and then when he's seen at the end of september this happened in july end of september the doctor said i don't see anything wrong with you you know you're you're you're done you're to my teeth still see they also looked at the fact that he did have a back injury and they awarded him her mcpartlin so we would ask the part of asked for thank you  commission based on a finding that under the chain of events theory of causation a showing that the injury produced symptoms produced the need to have medical treatment and that medical treatment continued progress and never went back to the way the person was before the injury then that is proof of causation and that's what we have in this case ron as we do not have someone who had an asymptomatic lumbar assume gnosis condition prior to july eighteenth two thousand an if his that was as bad as as dr shapiro was convinced it was then why don't we this man worked for thirty years at the time of this accident he had been a mechanic at that  respondents place of business for thirty years doing this kind of work which which does put strains on the back and there's there's no evidence whatsoever from a supervisor saying all he complained by was that all the time our coworker into a into the machine in order to retrieve it the plate that the plate weighed around thirty to forty pounds and so he's bending and lifting and he feels a pop and then he has pain symptoms so this is a chain of events case your honor i think if you read all of all of dr brown's testimony particularly on redirect after he  back issues what does how does that affect your opinion and you said that makes my opinion even stronger because if if he did have a prior back string then it would be more likely