this is a case where i'm asking this court to find that the commission's decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and i realize that i have a tough because the findings are factual findings of the commission but i'm asking you to strongly upon you but i would ask you to look at that because the arbitrator and the commission have very lengthy decisions here outlining all of the facts in this case one of the main decisions here that the commission found one of the main reasons that they found well we don't believe that there is an accident had to do with the accident date now as we know it workers compensation there really is nothing that provides for discovery in other words many documents we do not get until the date of hearing to assure testified here that he was doing overhead work at cullen's home park but he had been there for about a week and that's when he injured himself and that after lunch that day as he left due to the pain that testimony was supported by his fiance at the time jennifer who was his wife at hearing and also was supported by greg farmer who really is a very independent witness here is a long time employee and continued to work for responded and said that he overheard a conversation with mr mcdonald's now the fifth the commission here relies on the facts that while the allegation was amended that hearing to september third instead of october third but when i went on to this court the reason having it has nothing really to do until after september the third with the upper area of the right leg the right calf the right lumber secretary which supports also petitioner's wife at the time testified that he continued to have chiropractor care but that he was able to work full duty there is no dispute that from april to september he was able to work full duty but he was able to carry on his regular activities of daily living so to say that he felt one hundred percent better i don't know but you can say and this is someone who was significantly disabled from april to september and petition around through the records of dr chee i'm sure wasn't trying to hide anything continued his regular activity the complaints are significantly different starting with his visit on september set also dr cairnes records are consistent because he testified after the accident he called him a quote dr karen it took him about a month to get and he signed up to care on october sixteenth and the history is that a month prior he was doing work overhead and that's when he started to notice the symptoms and at that point to the medical histories here are so i don't think here when you have evidence that supports the state of accident and i think you have beyond that the petitioner's own testimony other credibility and again i point to greg farmer what what interests does he h case he clearly has no interest in is the most credible person and testify as to overhearing a conversation and it was in his understanding that it wasn't two thousand and two so it greg farmer has no interest in continuing to work for  responding as of the date of hearing so i believe strongly that this is a case where the opposite conclusion is apparent the arbitrator got it right here there's overwhelming evidence that he had an injury on september third two thousand and two and that it made his condition worse there's no doubt that he had a women back to work for five months but the medical work and support a recurrent also the commission points out that one of the three to five percent of the time when that happened and dr karen supports causation related issue of causation but i understand it now they're on accident so i mean and then the fact that they say well the commission also points out this could have happened during an activity of daily living well you could say that about any injury the question is what does the evidence support as to when it happened and we have consistent medical records here in september of two thousand and two tobar of two thousand and two pointing to the overhead work so i would ask you to look again at the medical evidence i think it strongly supports the september third two thousand and two when i think it strongly supports some credibility on behalf of the petitioner in this case so i would ask you to reverse the finding of the commission or thank you it's not just he doesn't know the exact date of the loss but it is a factor because we have gone anywhere from the original application october seventeenth two thousand and two to october third two thousand and two that he  all over the place because if you look there is not one single piece of paper not want to hear from hydrogen feeds yes he reported an incident that occurred on september through two thousand and two that one single piece of paper other than the men an application for makes any sense when you compare it to the fact that as your honor pointed out he indicated after his surgery in early two thousand and two he was completely pain free he had zero symptoms as an able to thousand two zero s of the time indicated that all he was he was back to all these activities he was active both at work and outside of work setting so i asked upon cross examination so you know for a fact when you hurt what do you need to look at the work block to determine what day you hurt yourself if you know for a fact how you did it and when he did why you have to look at these things and counsel points out well there are there are there are his third counsel  then his his description that his life was never the same after this day that he had gone from pain free symptom free to this and changed his life or are you have his description of the in him being sit pale sweaty hold but he doesn't go to the e r he doesn't go to the doctor is with fiance at the time worse that the local hospital supposedly goes to the report was come back in season two weeks but that's about two weeks time so what is the deal he reports the same pain intensity he reports the same symptoms he doesn't say i hurt myself oh my gosh the pain went through the roof i am beside indicated that he put him on light duty there is no light duty stuff in any of the medical records and there is absolutely no mention of any telephone report or call from  or petitioner on the day of this alleged injuries so you go back to these are his own witnesses this is own documentary evidence that reflects contradiction after contradiction after contradiction because what does he say i told and then the commission overturn it i'm on the add basis of accident and the main things that i want to point out here in the reason i think the opposite conclusion is apparent and that the commission is wrong here is counsel pointed out there is not one single piece of paper here basically supporting accident yet yes time it is there are number one september third records produced by responded showing you want half a day with no other explanation other than petition that he was doing overhead work and mr macdonald consistently testified that he was doing overhead work with light fixtures catgirl and hallmark and that he was the only worker there that he would have been doing it also in september sixth  records because he has about six office visits on a page with a couple of know so you know how through was his history we don't know but he does indicate on september sixth the overhead working which indicates that the client did report it to sakho pain which was something that he had experienced prior to his surgery so i would ask you to take a look at the evidence here i understand that i have a tough burden the twenty seven page decision by the commission but i think if you look at the arbitrator's decision and the commission's decision there's overwhelming evidence here the petitioner suffered an accident and i leave that not only the petitioner's credibility but you have to look at the medical evidence and the documentary evidence