you before you this morning is a manifest place question with a little bit of a twist to it we have a decision of the commission and if it terminations on call the connection in a denial then led to a loss of some of the evidence at the commission which had to be reclusive so it took a while to get back up here i have been before this court probably now twenty years i've been coming from time to where i had three doctors on causation and one doctor treating doctor who said it was called because i had three who didn't and i lost and i couldn't believe i got three doctors the one doctor how can i lose misinterpreted or the commission misinterpreted what the army doctor mentioned the commission of misrepresented what he thought they took his comments out of context of putting all of this in the issues of the case there was nothing wrong with that decision they made the arbitrator made that decision to commission if you look at the commission decision it wasn't just an affirm and a sign off with the magic language they want an expanded upon they wanted to dr miller's opinion as to they changed it and nagin talked about when they looked at this and with a different panel when the commission looked at these facts they did their job and we can see that proved anything wrong with what they did they didn't misinterpret they didn't do anything in my impression of stats was just what i look at when i look at an eye when i think it confused you that line where you're trying to weigh the evidence to make sure there's ample evidence to support the commission determination you may not re with it but it's there did talk about she had a parent neuropathy or intuition to the parent nerves which would be on the lateral side that would explain her complaints of the lateral pains that she had and so that when it came down to be noted and there's that you know he made this conclusion the commission looked at it clearly they looked at it carefully because they wrote extensively about it and coming to the conclusion that they were adopting every line upon the opinions of doctor believe that what happened here i believe that there was evidence that clearly clearly supported it was sufficient to support a denial on causation and a cut off of that you benefit to that point and the denial  circuit or overturns the commission with that being said to be the commission this decision is not set in stone or else there would be really no point in having a circuit review or an appellate review or you would just the doctors originally three that we should look at this nerve issue and determine if this is the cause of her pain m d m she has done it comes back normal and so that's the perennial nerve issues is ruled out recommendations are appropriate of an injection and then a scope surgery which the purpose of a scope surgery is to actually see what's going on he admits in his report that up to twenty percent of there is a contention that the knee issue it is preexisting right there is no evidence that it is preexisting and if it if it is a preexisting then why how is this not aggravation of that she had a clearly identifiable work injury and when she fell in a manhole that is understood the record is completely devoid of any prior any issues at all no need treatment no prior reported work injury anything as opposed to cause and action which is really what this case hinges on i believe he'd have a jordi of the surveillance what it was used for was to determine whether or not she was able to go back to work which are two different issues and truthfully the surveillance didn't really show anything and showed a woman going about her day and you know i bring normally that doesn't go i guess i don't think relation between the surveillance videos immediately saying that her knee on with the rest of the treatment at the time he i'm here for it was given and then basically cherry picked you know statements out of each i'm your part to support their contention that did very well was say we have a identifiable injury we have consistent treatment throughout and no evidence of anything prior to this to substantiate this i mean doctor saying oh well i can identify what's in the me i can if i was in the knee she's showing some degenerative changes but none of it's related to the accident and the notion of the basis for and i think that's the issue that the circuit court judge had