against the manifest weight of the evidence as i'm sure you're quite aware this whole pill process is in regards whether petitioners current condition to his right shoulder is related to his accident july three two thousand and eight of based on the medical records that we received we know of him receiving care on both chill in january of two thousand and four in july of two thousand and four for his right shoulder at that time he had a a lock right shoulder and he also i point that out because during the testimony at trial he's claimed that he did not have any prior issues with the shoulder he also testified that during the i am here you say that during the i v of dr berman now obviously these medical records show different tear but the problem is dr cohen that actions speak louder than his words we need to look at the medical records from september nineteenth two thousand and eight at that time dr co trying to figure out if there's shorter stability or was going on the shoulder he want to do an evaluation of the shoulder another medical record that supports him questioning whether there is a tear to the to the rotator cuff was november five two thousand and eight interestingly november five two thousand and eight dr cohen states that he thinks petitioners symptoms are from cervical riddick a lot of his next sentence is those states i think he should go ahead and move credibility is with obviously the arbitrator figured out the commission the commission the arbitrator figures out right away they test the credibility if if the witnesses are being credible or not right is it ever for this appellate court to second guess credibility determination of the commission in this case i think so with the manifest weight when i'm getting to is what the records will so is that these records conflicts what dr cohen was truly symptoms were from secondly he stated he should undergo he is some criminal decompression and a rotator cuff surgery if indicated now if indicated as i was stating goodnow theme knew that there was a terror he went on state to petitioner your your care after the surgery is going to pay not if i find a tear that basically say if i if you have surgery and if we do the decompression if there is not stating that there was a tear so at this time based on the two thousand and ten m r i we have three sets of eyes all green to the same thing three sets of eyes i want to discuss petitioner's condition if it resolved itself basically after the initial accident versus point out the petitioner did not undergo any care between november five two thousand eight hundred nov twenty five two thousand  over a year specifically for his right shoulder he did undergo care with a chiropractor early two thousand and nine but he testified that this was not specifically for his right shoulder it was for other body parts as well there's two important medical records that we must look at in regards to his care or his symptoms from his work x in july through two thousand and eight being being resolved but first one is october twenty seventh two thousand and nine again this is with the stream dr dr kong he goes to see  well you think he complains of not right shoulder not right shoulder issues now he is a tailbone issue there is nothing in the medical records october twenty seventh two thousand and nine almost one year after saying that he had any issue with his right reoccurrence he were recurrence of right shoulder pain he goes on to state that petitioner states his sentence completely resolved until one month ago let's take it let's take a step that run a month ago was when he was already word yes it was it was in regards to he was receiving additional care not only for soldiers but for other body parts during that time he was making mention that all he wants to do is go off that he's been able to go off he was having some issues with golf but again that care stop i don't know the exact date i apologize but in march or april two thousand and nine that care stopped and again that was not specifically for his shoulder that was for other body parts and he testified to that petitioner testified this with his opinion was the root tater cupped a generation that occurs as part of the aging process this is part of the aging process and he just couldn't pull this opinion out of the air he had facts to base it off of petitioners right shoulder issues started back in two thousand and four that we know of it's been that it's been that the generation process since two thousand and four to fifty seven years old at the time of the accident he's been mechanic for thirty years that's heavy labor he's been doing i think it's safe to say look in this looking around this room that we can and know what he's talking about the whole aging process if we all can remember the day when we could do a lot of bad run five miles a play bass player play tennis and not having issues on the on the body  helper by arguments about it that's ambiguous when did he need help or he needed help or from day one after the work injury we don't know this was it later on we don't know what jobs he needed help or for the other workers need helpers we don't know this see i can safely say because of the aging process which dr varmus stated here again the aging process is many times i go back home see my dad i will five years ago he could do something and now he can't it's not it's from the aging process whether the other thing was a petition or doing here he was a god from he was a goth you know a lot two times i read twenty seven holes from march to october he testified to this this is in that's were forty five hundred swings forty five hundred swings on the shoulder i think it's safe to say the shoulders are heavily involved with that with golf knowing being a big dog myself i know that the upper extremity injuries for golfers is the number two most common injury behind the so what i'm saying here is he was a god from throughout that time so from his two thousand and eight m r i to the two thousand and ten m r i gossip definitely could have played a part in this in the doctor as i stated dr cole never gave because ation opinion lincoln petitioner's condition to the work accident in fact as i stated in the november five two thousand and eight record he wasn't even sure if his symptoms were lobby or a shoulder tear he never gave a cause ation opinion and remember back in two thousand and eight he stated that he was going to have to have surgery to even see if there was a tear he wasn't even sure of the two thousand  there is is one of those islands there's an accident it's a good hour he had a prior issues we've already went over that he had prior issues there was an accident i'm not arguing there was an accident dr varmus stated that he's that suffer a sprain and again those resolved themselves in the read about his disability and he had a disability as i say with doctor with his disability stating probably october two thousand died and november two thousand i know his disability it interesting really chis into what we're talking about here today i was diagnosed with a tumour at the base my school in two thousand and nine took the eighth ninth tenth and eleventh cream all nerves i have difficulty swallowing i can't hear and i have one vocal chord but most importantly it took all of the muscles across the back of my shoulder right through here i mention that only because i am also the two time defending champion of the w c a lake off competition as we sit here i have won that competition five total times and the past two years in a row but i can tell you want to quickly despite my prowess as a golfer my lack of shoulder muscles prevent me from lifting my arm to about here or about here but i can hit a golf ball pretty darn well mr bar lies golfing activity is completely irrelevant particularly if you want to take a ten pound sledge hammer and compare that when you bang your head against automobile car frame and consider that to be something the equivalent of swinging cough club made of titanium purposely intended to be light the reason why i mention this for about two three minutes now is because that's the essence of their case that's what the shoulder swing the sledgehammer he hurt his shoulder when he was pulling the chains that are on these tower mechanisms that go when they clamp the car plant to the tower mechanism and then they pull the chain to pull and that's exactly what was before the commission they gave you those facts counsel had an opportunity to bring in the owner i'm sorry they didn't bring in the owner they brought in the chief executive officer who was there who witnessed my client testimony and when my client said they provided me with a helper he agreed but he wasn't able to do his job in the commission picked up on that because the commission looked at this very carefully right they looked at this carefully because they modified the arbitrator's decision but it just rubber stamps of the minute occurred before they took over very close look they made their own specific findings the decision in opinion from the commission is the leaders they wrote it that proposed decisions from either side not the arbitrator so they looked at all of these factors and made their factual conclusion and they gave you three were very specific findings that supported their conclusion so if i look at those four very specific findings then the analysis is due to those  specific findings have support within the record right that's what we should do and if there are support within the record for those four specific findings then the commission's decision should not be touched w first finding but he prior to this had worked full duty without restrictions without treatment without any problems but after this he had to work some light duty he require assistance of a helper that respondent themselves acknowledged he he required injections into his shoulder to quell the pain and limitations in order to keep doing the vast majority of his job only wise in two thousand and eight well he wanted to keep working and he did but he required assistance and respondents witness acknowledge such and the commission make that one of their findings is that supported in the record it is there's no evidence that he had to restrict his work before this accident there is evidence he restricted after this work this injury and it's a acknowledge by the respondent themselves where's the contrary evidence for that there is it that's the truth that's a fact and the commission found that so number one has supported it's no there's nothing contrary to that number two is a look and see whether or not that statement that finding by the commission is supported by the record and he answer is we can look at the petition as testimony first and clearly he says i was i would get my i got my injection i worked for a number of months it creep back i got another injection it creeps back six or seven months later i got another injection but each time he wanted to keep working but each trainee got an injection the time that that injection helped him decreased twelve months seven months four months two workers comp this is a bit ongoing this has been going on and it's not getting better mr barlow has been complaining about it that's their testimony when he reported when the general manager reported it said workers cap and said bye guys in the office he needs to go back to the doctor can you approve it they asked him what was going on and he filled out another report and said this is from july of two thousand and eight he said  and then he testified that it was going on over and over and over and he confirmed the report between mr bartle right and the owner of the dealership where they were conversing about how this was continuing so the answer is is is number two supported by the evidence is number two supported by facts that the commission found there and the answer is it is finding that there was tears in the m r i same that dr earle was not persuasive is supported by evidence in the record to doctors upon that so it's not contrary to the manifest weight it's supported by evidence they made of the third conclusion and they said that he was told he needed the same surgery on november five of two thousand and eight at the same surgery on january eighteenth two thousand and eleven so take a look at that and is that true is that supported by the record because if it is we have to leave it alone bright if you don't need to be sold back up sewing a complete tear is a repair the brightening of a free post might not need repair but the answer is not about what the surgery was the answer is is it was the same surgery in november of two thousand and eight as the surgery in january of two thousand and eleven same surgery that's what the commission found that's one of the elements they used to support their find is there truth to that absolutely that's what's in the record that's what dr cohen went on those two days so to say whether or not at the commission is against the manifest we look at that look at number three is it supported yes it's supported by the record and it's not anything that's under mind by the fact that you had seen it back to two thousand federal no one recommended surgery in two thousand and four but we recommended injections in two thousand and four nobody even recommended physical therapy two thousand the same thing was true in two thousand and five those things only occurred contemporaneous with this injury and the commission found that fact important that was in their decision that supported by the record the last one was known before but the commission said that that the rumor was unpersuasive and i already touched on this one and number three because it had it came in with that but the commission said our fourth point is that dr horrible's opinion was unpersuasive again all right well the commission has to make that determination right isn't that their job they say dr coleman said there somebody has to resolve that right now under our case law the resolution of that conflict belongs across the street and they made it and once they make it do they have a basis for making it and the answer is dr cohen said dr byrne fields said yes there was bats the basis for their opinion that is contrary manifestly by dr freeman having a contrary opinion it's not it's not manifestly hatchery opinion but hardly carries the weight and i will say there's two doctors against one because every time i say there's two doctors it gets one curable higher for more doctors that's easy but that's not really the point the point is that was one of the commission's findings of fact and resolut resolution of a conflict in the record they made a determination they gave you a finding as to why they came back and who should and i'm here standing before you to say there was a basis for he started out his argument talking about his personal golf with the wicked golf tournament his championships that he's won just to clarify that is a fair man team events so he did not win these individual radiologist said it was worse than it did it was much worse we got to remember petitional was working full duty throughout that whole time course it's going to get worse we also got to remember in october of two thousand  fourteen fifteen months after the original accident what the petitioner say he went to the doctor for a tailbone the same doctors treating doctor first soldier for a tailbone injury no mention was made of a new shoulder complaints run a month