case the first issue of his causal connection i'm going to begin with because the connection for the right shoulder condition in this found that there was a causal connection quote initially between the accident handy bilateral condition of bill being brought to the commission found that such causal history suggestion or suggestion of any subsequent or intervening accident sickness injury that would supersede the earlier finding of causal trouble diagnosing what exactly was the problem with the right shoulder he said quote it's difficult to tell exactly what the ideology of the pain and quote under the assumption that is the subject criminals face we want to perform a diagnostic and hopefully therapeutic injection there the commission took that to believe that he had no idea as to what was going on with this who made all sorts of findings but testified later in a deposition but the complaints were all in this court and the commission bought it and denied benefits this court reversed the commission and said let's not look at what he says let's look at what he found shoulder function she was that ninety degrees she should be one eighty abduction she's at ninety degrees she should be at one hundred eighty a competent shoulder examination should include test line he just goes nothing he's not playing in my brief is that his conclusion is like dr spencer's conclusion in the clarke case he can say it but he can't prove it because his own examination betrays his conclusion and indeed the court case this court also stated that not only did it dispenses own conclusion betray his own findings was contrary to all of the evidence in this case what is all the evidence in this case is dr met his opinion and then you have the opinion of dr philip who are vehemently post op who is the radiologist who reviewed the post  surgical and yet post surgical examination found the ninety degrees loss of function was limited to ninety degrees abduction was it ninety i'm a little bit it really is largely subjective degrees he asked me to raise their arms this is the first i can go that's the end of it all right we did it but there are a number of other big even if that were correct there were a number of other tests which he did not perform such as  the other issue that i want to raise dane the commission denied the perspective here for two reasons first dr method didn't really know what was going on and we've covered that in the second is their own cross examination counsel do not try this case they asked the claimant don't you have group insurance to pay for not really be in nam once pain that's what they said well of course it's finding is contrary to the underlying philosophy of the act that casualties of industry should be borne by industry and this it's an everyday tree ruling it's an abuse of discretion the next test becomes was the petitioner prejudiced by this and i say yes when they specifically cite that is one of the opposing counsel is referring to his responses of a number three which is the i report dated september thirteenth two thousand and eleven while opposing counsel is correct that the active range of motion was ninety degrees and eighty degrees  what opposing counsel doesn't mention is that in the supine position at the passive range of motion which would be the dr moving the childer itself i actually got it up to one seventy bilaterally therefore as justice earlier  line as of september thirteenth two thousand and eleven as she had the ability to return to work and in his opinion he notes that really the only thing holding her back from returning to work is her mentality that she can't do it she used to do due to her i guess the pain that that that showed severe tendonitis didn't know that there was a a linear interest substance tear at of thirty percent the radiologist did note that it does not communicate with the superior or or inferior services of as that's our position this point in time when taking i guess into account on everything that occurred throughout this process and i want to hammer into details i think it's kind of been mentioned so far with all the different testing with all the examinations things along those lines i think when you look at the two opinions you look at doctor levin's of things and also doctor made those you look a doctor made of august fourth two thousand and eleven he performs an examination of the employee he looks thirteenth two thousand and eleven she said i with regard to both shoulders opposing counsel on his in his argument noted whether or not it is an abuse of discretion to include the group health insurance if you actually look at the case that he cited to i think the case that he cited to actually states and they the issue there was whether or not the respondent would have to pay for medical expenses knowing that an employee had group health insurance i believe the response argument in that case was since she has group health insurance we don't have to pay for it she just put it through that whereas in this case it was more use along the lines of whether or not she required further surgery by just looking at that factor as to whether or not she received any further medical treatment between the time that she last saw dr made in the time of trial which was approximately four four and a half months so in sum without trying to hammer home all the points you know if it is a response position or employees position that there is eno october of two thousand and ten that suddenly disappeared in september of two thousand and eleven with the same examination or doctor or a brain totally flip flop danis treatment could have gotten his own but you didn't get the treatment and it goes to the question of you really really needed to treat it if i'm sick i'm going to get to treatment regardless of who's paying for all who are you about where the liability lies later i mean there's your defense to the attack that she's not telling the truth because she could have gotten treat that's exactly what this is but this isn't the situation you you represent in your original argument that they somehow decid disposition show issue