review is appropriate the second issue is whether this injury could be considered one that a room was out of be employed as it concerns the first issue it is our position that there are left and that would mean that this is a didn't normal review of a noble review and as such we are not bound by the commission's decision i believe the circuit court was in error when they decided this case on the manifest weight of the evidence i believe with that said that when you review the record and you find that this individual stood behind a press operation wishing that made a felt tip gasket that was used between engines that wait between houses or three pounds that what he did was no war that what was cited in the bridge which is simply moved to the left any independent knowledge of what mr paas was doing on september thirteenth answer no question so all you know if you had any recollection of what mr paas told you he was doing on september thirteenth answer basically in terms of the line of questioning and terms of somebody twisting the back or hurting a disk or something like that it could be picking up a paper clip off the floor it doesn't have to be a high kinetic energy it does not have to be a heavy weight lifting injury in fact as a spine surgeon this is what i see but it is true i don't know question in fact it does not require any weight lifting it does not even require picking up a paper clip to a herniated disc does it answer no this is the whole deal if somebody is on the job and they whether they're picking their nose or picking up a paper clip off the floor picking up a file or lifting up a hundred poetic it's still an injury on the job soul to me as an orthopedic surgeon it does not make much difference but that is true question well your phrase injury on the job is it merely a reference to the location where he was when an injury happens right answer right positional risk doctor to that worker could never recover under the theory absolutely i beg to respectfully disagree you certainly may if the testimony is such that this man was under constraint to what is the general public i mean fair use another example if somebody is trying to put things on a shelf in a stack and they've got to reach up and do that and they do that all day and then something happens and they have an injury isn't that positional risk because don't we all  kinetic energy and as a doctor said this is so ok we do that because because you're falling back on the fact we don't have a repetitive drama correct mike my hypothetical would have said well that goes to understood thank you so with that said i believe that the record because the normal qualls means that the burden of proof has been not met in this mean they brought in a witness county local supervisor for the specific purpose to contradict the testimony of my client martin pos she went out of her way to say that the job didn't require him to stand the job didn't require him to pivot to his laughter figure to his right completely contrary to what mr abbas testified to my clients as the fight to on september thirteenth one thousand nine hundred nine his job was to remove a moving target you know there's little difference between simply moving and twisting crack no he testified that he worked the machine which was in front of him the machine would kick out sheen parts in the guy whose job was to take these or twist to his left in place him on his work is work table this is what he did all they want he testified while doing this he noticed a sharp pain as well back immediately notified what else you have to say as to why this is not the the a police officer sitting at his chair hearing a noise and moving his neck to the left in his neck cracking the caterpillar case somebody crossing the street and slipping on a curb those cases have nothing to do with his this gentleman was clearly doing what he does he's a machine operator i don't operate a machine and none of you gentlemen operate a machine we're not exposed to take the machine parts out of the machine and twist into the left on a continuous basis it's clearly a question of fact so it's not the normal review because the nature of what he does and how he twists and turns is sort of disputed is that we're saying that's correct it was disputed your honor i mean look at the look at the testimony economy  didn't have to stand she testified that the job required minimum lifting where my client testified he was required to lift thirty to forty pounds on the other cases counsel cites relate to people that have preexisting degenerat point in time during the course of the day everybody if they're mobile and ambulatory and moving are going to twist once in a while so the saying well we did this is what everybody does why should this be compensable simply turning to the senate because of the down the hall to take a file down the hall there's going to be something more of them i mean you're saying well because he's classified as a machine operator well that's what he does there's not testimony you have you have records from other doctors dr swanberg where he gave a history of right will back pain after twisting place in parts of federal mogul he saw dr me he gave him a consistent history operating machine twisted with a machine powerful severe discomfort in his back i think with dr trieste or was just saying was the weight isn't significant with respect to the mechanism of the ball being a herniated disc and i don't know if any of you know dr treece or he at times gets a little bit heated that positions and can sometimes be out not rude i didn't take that specific deposition i was another attorney in the office but the caterpillar case where we all transverse curves and it's different effects are different the other cases council site talk about people that have severe degenerative conditions where the doctor testified that any simple normal activity would have caused the injury that's not the case here yes he did injure him self in one nine hundred ninety he had a low back injury he testified that he treated through one nine hundred ninety two where he had been released from his doctor from genitive condition that no matter what he would have done with a lot of this the evidence doesn't support that with respect to some of the other issues in the case notice notified his supervisor that the accident on the terms of the medical there was about thirty eight hundred dollars awarded they did not introduce any contrary medical evidence the treatment was unreasonable or not necessary with respect to causation they don't have a doctor  once again i'd like to point out too that these were proud undisputed facts of this case was hotly contested but the supervisor testified at length they talk about her testimony in their briefs that it's different than petitioner didn't have to stand and he didn't have to do this again here in the at was not simple normal activity this is not a personal risk case and there's no evidence that he had a severe precessing condition that any normal standard of lies in this case i submit that when you go to the record page fifty nine when under direct examination the claimant testifies when i'd made a good target i felt a sharp pain in my no not everybody does however in this case we're talking about either really pound weight in the area on which there is no medical cost the connection opinion that i need to know will review that you're facts of this case with death i submit that this record stands as one in line with other cases previously highlighted in our briefs that says that this matter needs reversed thank