true that there is a statement in the briefing with regard to that particular pages states the issue that talks about something a little bit different than manifestly however manifest weight is discussed in the briefing pages one and twenty five i would say that it was a mistake that made it to the first page and then our manifestly argument is the same thing that we've argued since the time of the arbitrator's decision and that there's nothing about that argument that's any different and that there if there right and with regard to the manifest weight argument we have and it is agree that there was a work related accident that happened in this case mr novak was working on a bridge he fell but was able to secure his hand on a piece of yester originally again he the gentleman treated for laceration injury us ten days later he had stitches removed at that time when he went back he was there he was given a no releasing him to work he went back to work was laid positive clinical findings with a preliminary diagnosis of a shoulder strain and cervical spine disorder for which she also then sent temps dr fry tag also a side view to deal with his back problems with which neck and shoulder pain he testified it is their position that there were multiple positive findings regarding the right shoulder and then these findings were what one would see in the shoulder path our g p rather than cervical spinal tap after so he believed t i agree i agree that that's exactly why the answer oh yes well i'm not i don't believe that the credibility of the client is what's in question here i believe it's the findings of the medical professionals that are inconsistent with what the arbitrator found in positive find it's after that that cannot that are not a question of my client's credibility and dr fry tagg who was one who treated him for his back indicated in his deposition testimony that that that those types of complaints were not complaints that would be immediately apparent after the injury that it would take time for those they were it was a he says that that cervical findings following an injury of this type would be gradual and not i isn't an opposite conclusion that's the proper term loosely i believe it is based on most clinical findings and the fact that you can't count her the testimony of the experts in the case you can't count on these things popping up immediately and that's backed by all the positive findings that regard to the shoulder and the back that are in the file there is some mention that eight or nine months prior to the injury at work that he did go to the emergency room as he stepped on a rake in the yard  here i would argue that your honor that that that is the only issue quoted in the brief that's contrary to what was in their timing stated i agree that that it's almost like an end around in that the arguments may could be translated to manifest way but you know just for the purposes of our motion i just point that out if you're going to press that look not not particularly i  think the real issue here is manifestly you know i don't think there's any argument that and you know i'm certainly comfortable with with with our arguments in that regard i believe that  specifically on the manifest weight issue is the appellant's burden to prove that the findings of the arbitrator in the commission are so clearly erroneous that the opposite conclusion must be the proper one and i think it's very difficult considering the facts present in this case suit to argue that the arbitrator and the unanimous commission were in fact good wrong in concluding  opportunity just to disclose that he was seen by at least four or five doctors in this case and he related no relevant past history to any and more importantly the appellant have the opportunity to reveal his history again a trial when he was under oath and he again gave a false and misleading statement that he did not have any prior problems involving snap i think the crucial significance of this failure to disclose this past history is clear all the doctors who testified in this case  testifying based upon the specific history provided to them that the appellant not have any prior problems involving the parts of body at issue and i think one would certainly expect  of the symptoms on the field or on the shoulder injury specifically all of the doctors mention that what would expect those types of symptoms to manifest themselves within twenty four to forty eight  appellant probably didn't mention anything with regard to those complaints because he didn't think he was hurt and again dr fried egg was also want to wear of the incident involving the right an injury from february two thousand and seven for which the appellant treated a minimum of two months at least until april what is this rate disability case again he indicated that he was hit in the head by a break i don't know if he stepped on it or or there was some that he was hit by a rake he indicated in the medical records that you felt like his head was going to blow off the plane the severe neck pain following that incident and he treats for a minimum of two months but again we're in the dark with regard to some of those points and some of that treatment because he told every single doctor i mean doctor his own doctors and yet no prior history of neck problems and he told the arbitrator a trial that he had no priors and so i think the  issue is i think it's really a black mark on his credibility in this case the fact that he's given every opportunity to come clean with regard to this medical history he tells four or five doctors no prior history no prior  these parts of the body he told the arbitrator trying i had no prior problems and again it seems convenient that we have a hand laceration until he's laid off differing and counts and i think that they they really point out this petitioners problems telling the truth another issue that was present in the record is a referenced references mr phil back as my guy and specifically states and i quote it is important to go over this and make him say to you that and then goes into a history of  and i i i can't imagine a circumstance where someone if someone is telling the truth why there's a document explaining to us to him what provider you have to make him tell you  the trial transcript there is no evidence that he's incapacitated or suffers from some sort of handicap there was no indication at trial that he had mental problems with his memory i think that that's you know again that's that's t documentation and particularly positive clinical objective findings with the rape incident i was struggling to find that reference and that in in the record there is a c t scan of the neck that shows no positive i'm ok now after this accident where he has positive findings raise regarding his back and his neck that are documented in the in the record of dr fry   was completely opposite of what it should have been given those that evidence for those reasons i ask you send it back down so that i would care to take a look at it