would be standing here arguing it's basically the opinion that medical opinion of dr who are not compared to the weight of the evidence for all the other treating physicians and the medical treatment that  because if you look at the medical records of the medical testimony metal medical evidence of the witness testimony as of october twenty fifth two thousand and ten mr smith had a twenty pound weight restriction he was undergoing conservative treatment ving twenty to twenty five percent he was then the next one to it was declaiming able to work all without active medical treatment and without exhibiting any pain in the two years leading up to his accident  town no it was not for the following reason because as of that time the school district had a seventy five pound weight requirement and mr smith was a substitute employee call in on that call them as noted he was not a full time employee but it was known from that time that until he was able to win because of the seventy five pound weight restriction he would not be able to return to work  opinion was the fact that he was under the assumption that mr smith was working full time from the time they was released without injury all the way up to the time this it and that was one of the basis of his opinion was that while he was working full time all  work related injury that dr gordon had did not take a look at he only looked at the only thing that dr gordon out looked out was he looked at the m g he looked at the m r i that you just referenced but he did not have actually benefits and completely resolve his back symptoms and that all the claimant working without medical restrictions no a medical treatment and was not in pain for two years prior to october the four five by the the the issue that i see with that is that his opinion is only as valid as the facts of the hats and what he has is he's looking at what he was told by the claimant he's reviewing that m r i that was seen but he's not reviewing the prior m r i to see if that m r i if there was any were worsening or a few condition hasn't done it but let me ask you question if the guy understand that when a claimant saying that he's not symptomatic before when you look at how he progressed through preplan with the physical therapy notes that showed he was improving as a at a treatment that added repetition he was performing everything good range of motion little complaints of pain able to do all that easily saw dr hauser that time who compared the m r i eyes he also did the objective testing to determine whether or and he was the only physician seen by that claimant saw that performed those tests to specifically judge the validity of the subject to complaints that mr smith was coming i think that subjective complaints of pain as far as judging the credibility i think that i agree that the commission's finding as far as credibility i i'm not arguing that point but i'm looking at b of as far as the medical evidence and whether or not the as far as the medical evidence is in order to judge the complaints and whether or not it's valid like i of may sixth two thousand and eleven in which he is handling forty pounds of material with relative ease in various situations going into menarche lifting forty pound bags into a shopping cart shopping cart over the tailgate of his pickup and back into the pickup will also see that playing it at three thirty five of that same group for thirty eight of that same video picking that those same bags not bend over the ways and easily shaking them out big time and i know that when you're talking about whether or not he would they found incredible he did say in that in response to the empty in the bank that he was kneeling down and spreading it out with his hand you will see him doing that but it's at four thirty five or four thirty eight after that minute where he's taking it out and shaking  to fire injury after really had relief complete relief of his pain by having girl injections he work heavy work for a period of a couple years before he started his work related accident and the sudden onset of pain that persisted thereafter is documented by his own testimony as t issue because you do have a case where we have video evidence of an individual that's actually handling that we say that evidence clearly shows is double what his prescriptions are with that with that we believe that looking at that video evidence clearly shows that he is visual capable of at least doing forty not saying come back to work for the school district but he can work in some capacity his testimony at that plaintiff was his single syllable from our case because there you have an individual that's just sitting there doing a few odds and ends that are totally consistent with the restriction then a visual such as mr smith w handling material that doubled his restriction i think has to be taken into account shows that one he can work he does have he could return to work with or without restriction because of one of the factors dr howard report after the second book of the disco braman all and the video and i think that just based on an individual who can live just because he did not go back to work with the school district which