is against the manifest weight of the evidence our rushnell dispute is with findings on accident as we know in workers compensation we can have acute event accidents and repetitive trauma accidents i hear there's no dispute that what's alleged as the mechanism is repetitive trauma also as we know when a individual has a preexisting condition there are different cases and inquiries that we look into surgical intervention i was discharged a few months later and still experience low back pain and numbness for which he was prescribed narcotic medication and the years after that he did treatment sporadically but he did seek treatment for aggravations with respect to shoveling snow a golf incident and subsequent to a car accident he complained of blow back pain and he did regularly have scripts fi is in our total so clearly the record shows that you've symptomatic or low fact pain in the time prior to the preexisting condition but you know the issue is whether or not the work condition exacerbated or aggravated the preexisting condition clearly his job involved heavy labor the commission found that was the case or connection my response to that is that dr goh c e o did testify to that at his deposition and if we take that one shred of evidence in isolation then sure i i'm caught i'll acknowledge that however he also said first that's not the standard during direct you testified that his condition could have progressed with or without physical work activities and be due to activities of daily living so therefore i think it's pretty clear that he doesn't have an opinion based on a reasonable degree of medical and surgical certainty that there was an aggravation if he's allowing the activities of daily living to to account for his present condition at that time not he also doctor goes the office blocks with me but he also wrote in a couple of reports that it was the w a condition it is injury an edition to his activities on a regular basis related to his job description have caused the premature deterioration generation of the patients fine and that his work activity has been the most aggravating factor in his back condition as it is today that's what he wrote you don't get better so slowly the question is how fast your hand while that excel are in it during the vacation time in december two thousand and nine record is clear that the petitioner and soft testified to that that his condition accelerated while you was on vacation for the month of december that is bad that's the only evidence of acceleration that i phone in looking at this record i mean simply put i do not believe there's  seanie by indicating that perhaps one shred of evidence is not to survive a mass weight stand i don't know that the law is any cases say one shred of evidence that the test is whether there is evidence in the record quote unquote to support the commission's decision and here  on cross that active use of the layering was followed another rule that is in terms of the credibility way to be given to the evidence those are within the problems of the commission we are not to substitute our judgment for credibility your word that right understood  i don't think the record though is as harmonious on the point was a shot from dr rosy because he holds two separate and so therefore your argument is that his his his position as testimony has to be inherently flawed though you're saying it's logically inconsistent and on top of that he also never took a history from the titian or if you look at his medical records there's no subjective portion of his medical records which suggest that continued our position is basically that the man a degenerative disc disease condition a dramatic progression and there is no significance to generating twenty three but he had it before he had it on that date and he had it again and as is just as hawking pointed out it's going to get worse and that's the nature of that condition and this simply based on the fact that he had some heavy duty type job activities taken that alone in isolation is not enough to pro date it could be the date when sometimes first hand it could be the date the first sought medical treatment it can be the date that they no longer able to perform their job duties you could be the date that they understood their job duties were the cause of the injury in this case january eighteenth two thousand and ten actually satisfies two of the things that ram tells us first it's the last day he was able to carry out his shop activities and second it's the day he sought medical treatment for the back condition when he went to his doctor and said i can no longer do what i've been doing because of my pain so the commission's finding out that manifestation date is correct and should be affirmed regarding the issue of whether or not he went to the doctor and reported that his work activities were the cause of his condition counsel suggests that there's nothing subjectively in the history sections of the records that support is acknowledgement to the doctor that is back in just in was due to  duties and i say that's not correct if you look at dr goh ceo's march first two thousand and ten record which is contained in the record on page one ninety two he very specifically sets forth not only the past medical history so dr gross he was aware of that but he says the patient works in maintenance of the rockford park system systems he's had an injury to the shoulder as well with previous surgery in the place of you deny specific injury or accident he has had a gradual worsening of his little back and leg pain and the past two months or more have been the most severe and then subsequent to that dr gross you know goes through at least three letters back and forth with th occasional lifting of more than one hundred pounds frequent lifting of more than fifty pounds and constant lifting of twenty pounds that's in the job description that they provided they asked him do you think this is work related and  surgical certainty the work activity is that you've provided to me in this description are the single most contributing factor to the breakdown of his back and the need for treatment and his inability to continue working and then in subsequent letters goes on to say he can't continue doing that type of work restriction and he went back and forth trying to figure out what it is he could still do and what he can't you know there's no question in this record that the commission's decision is clearly supported by a manifest w