referring to the back a since most of the primary issues before the court made to the bad case and can be summarized by the broader question of whether the findings regarding the accident causal connection in a wage differential are against the manifest weight of the evidence can with the accident issue in addressing why it was not proper for the commission to consider anything of the proposed decision is part of the record of proceedings and how and with the wage differential issue by addressing why the arbitrators denial of the request for bifurcation of the trial was improper to determine whether the findings of the accident cause a connection a wage differential border attempts to manifest weight of the evidence i now wish the test is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the commission's finding it's it's an industrial commission case and i and i submit that this court might want to take a look at whether or not that is issue that could be decided by this  court and settle because the rule of seventy three hundred thirty point in any states the proposed decision must set forth all issues in dispute and the parties position on each issue and be written in the same manner and form consistent with recruit because the women and i think that's the second issue if we take the proposed decision well what's wrong with it is in most urban some circumstances that's perfectly acceptable your honor  but there is the case for it doesn't require that it be by preponderance of the credible evidence and in this case the petitioner went to a doctor and he testified that he went for a different condition on the day  the accident and he said he felt good with no complaints whatsoever i think that's pretty compelling evidence furthermore when he continued to go to doctors if if anybody shook the time this is very fact intensive and and  very burdensome to go through but he treated for several months and he never said to any doctor i had to work insulin in fact some histories the first to dr caryn stark for instance said that he had a gradually occurring in playing that that occurred in january and i think all of you probably have see this very often where there's this confusion between repetitive trauma versus a specific incident then why does a clinic get on the stand and say absolutely not only did it happen that day but i told a witness that i didn't produce and then he tried arguing later they all the respondent should have produced the witness but he never proved that  that the that the witness was within our control and i mean taking that also gets into the confused area between noticing the accident just because you told the supervisor that day that's noticed it's not necessarily proof that accident offering proverbial floodgates by saying anybody i've been with this case is a very clear case of manipulation and i think it's pretty obvious in the records and in your town  yet when he was referred to peter she wrote that he needed a possible future ankle reconstruction now judging from the amount of doctors and whatnot that this claimant sought if he wanted surgery could he not have  well i think this court can still even despite deference it's normally the law and they have in certain cases reversed decisions in the commission doesn't have to have total he wasn't even taking he's not taking any drugs he's not treating they're after and i come back to him because the bottom line of it is is that the colon is seeking revers that leader there's madame de mint you don't mention it in any of the findings i think that's a problem there was an agenda by the group that he saw it i see that basically said what comport with what he said and if that's not a flag i don't know what is and then on top of that they say six months you could be reassessed of obama he goes back out six months later and sees factor crimes and and she gives him a release to return to work full duty and it's in the record that then we go offered him his position back and several months later dr quinn sic writes to make concern letter with the c c to his attorney saying oh i mean i meant to return to also when he testified about his job search to get to the next point that even if you are there's two problems to the wage differential and they're just there to prove disability and then that you have found suitable alternate employment he testified that he did it created a job search and i asked him some questions to bring the job search with him to the trial no i didn't bring it i  says that would be enough but he caved information to dr priam who was the examining psychological doctor and he gave the information to i see that he had had many kinds of different jobs earning forty to fifty thousand dollars a year so he gets  basically a manipulative phony when he first went to the midwest orthopedics i mean he was supposed to see dr holmes there's a wide area in the evidence that says you know he made a big deal over the fact that he had to look at some your honor i can only say that i've been practicing for about fifteen years and worker's comp and i've never been before you before i can before this court i should say yes a few cases where people have subjective from complaints and you can do  michael ware the foreman on the day of the injury as certified by beatrix owens there with this person in charge of workers compensation and other things client get constructed from february twentieth of two thousand and four in all the way through even today this is it dr levine actor mark levine will  compulsory medical examiner will know he supports the conclusion that there was an accident that there was calls a connection that there were numerous housel suggest and takes out of context one counted from the sp decision i wouldn't mid here this argument is a red herring but it's akin to a closing argument that if a if you're a trial judge and i get up in my closing argument and say i know me for for me for this position but i was most can see that we would agree