i think the commission molly mason stated quite clearly the reasonable inference is that should have been drawn by the commission pointed out that the commission and the majority commission's factual findings the medical records dr paves testimony and nothing else and we have cited some cases regarding some of the inference is drawn by the commission in support of they were finding surmise and conjecture the commission's conjecture that this person did not experience the symptoms because there are no employer records documenting that you removed himself from work or to take time off of work because of made by the knowledge existence of employment records documented that he removed himself from work or time from work because of his lower back your call that he testified that he would take himself off of work a needed to because of that the commission discounted that testimony on the basis of not existant employment records in the record so there were no records don't exist in the record they were creating them out of th very true the commission noted it sure also testified that he became frustrated with the treatment schedule and he decided that since the physical therapy wasn't helping him he wasn't getting of the type of response from his they not mention it they did not reconcile that they did not attempt to distinguish it from the facts of the case or were not perhaps errors dr payne addressed a number of the issues that commission was faced with and he in his medical testimony said that it's a night out of ten people will have a spontaneous improvement but it doesn't end the condition it does out of the condition and that the viol episode that occurred in march of two thousand and eight he felt continue to be the cause of media because of his problem and that the commission did not deal with the attempted to deal with that by trying to was necessarily pointed out but he was working and being paid for cutting down trees yes and it and i watch will shock sensation which i would know the physical therapists in the original own treatment in april reported an accident of just working and his condition getting worse and the commission no need to have vets when he went to the doctor when one when he was washing his dog one when  opinion does explain the medical condition that is not within the knowledge of a lay person and i don't believe that the condition is necessarily within the knowledge of the commission just testimony of the evidence regarding his work activities and this court rightly rejected the commission's finding for the logical reason that the commission was was actually basing their decision on having less knowledge of reverse the commission and it's not just a matter of weighing the evidence differently this is truly a case where the manifest with the evidence clearly would wire a different result and i think that that is what we're asking the court to do condition i believe that the evidence and the only evidence in the record regarding causation from competent sources suggest in fact that that is the case the original accident continued to be a contributing factor majority reached the correct decision with regard to liability for treatment of condition as it manifested itself made that night feel that the result is appropriate and what basis they reject  huge improvement in the condition occasional low back pain no ridiculous that's the end of the care that starts his new job has started his new job the next three days after the original injury and the injury we agree that was not silliest long break when nothing happened he says if he took a day off here and there yes and it got to the doctor for it there's no official time off for any of that continues to work then in may twenty clearing brush cutting wood now this was testified they were eight words volunteer thing but company paid overtime doing the same like so there he has spent seven hours doing the chain saw for at the end of that time you're injured himself to that point but there's nothing to connect it up i mean you have to concede to medical opinion and we can take judicial notice that working with a chain saw i mean you're making a logical argument that is there anything technically to they please the court counsel my name is lori coulter brain and i represent the employer in this case with respect to the man in two thousand and nine and i think your honor spoke earlier about kind of cutting to the chase and that's what i'd like to do here's what the petitioner says here's what the medical records say they do not say the same thing they are inconsistent the employer for the march two thousand and eight accident he was talking about this chainsaw incident again that assumes that this actually happened the record is completely devoid of any mention of a chainsaw incident in fact even when if you did medical the medical records records yes i apologize the petitioners testimony is the only thing that we have once he sat down in front of an arbitrator that is the first time he specifically told anyone medical professional or anyone in but this physician's assistant who he had seen numerous times in the past instead of telling her hey the day before i was doing chainsaw for seven hours and i had so much pain i thought i was going to vomit from it he tells her no i was squatting down and had so much pain i could hardly stand up politician or testimony in arbitration the squatting down incident occurred at home it was not a squatting down incident while he was doing the chainsaw he specifically said no squatting down was at home when i squatted down the shower again when he returns to either dr planned or his physician's assistant just a few weeks later he again fails to mention anything with respect to this chainsaw so if it were for that matter any repetitive trauma he goes back to indicating this all stems from my three twelve two thousand and eight accident even more telling is the physical therapy record of six for two thousand and nine the physio therapy associates at that visit he gives an onset of five ten two thousand and nine giving his dog bath bending in the shower feeling excruciating pain in his back there is nothing about anything occurring at work repetitive chainsaw anything in may of two thousand and nine the following day i think it's important to recognize the chronology of the events the following day the petitioner then goes into the employer and fills out the accident or so he's seen at physio therapy associates on six for two thousand and nine and sixty five two thousand and nine for the first time he goes into his employer and says hey i'm having back pain the history is from crawling under cars nothing again about this chainsaw incident the same day he found his application for adjustment of claims on both of these issues the employees argument his well maybe he just couldn't verbalize what before is unable to describe something that caused him so much pain that he was going to vomit the day before to his physician's assistant that is unbelievable and i think that was the crux of the commission's decision with respect to the may two thousand and nine accident he simply did not believe him by balancing and looking at the medical records and balancing his testimony with what was not contained in those medical records this fart is this repetitive trauma think the employee points to some complaints that are found in dr actually believe sectoral questions record in july of two thousand and nine and then maybe later in i believe it was september of two thousand and nine the fact of the matter is there is nothing in those records that somehow connects this back to a manifestation date of may two thousand and nine that is not what the petitioner was complaining about in may of two given a lot of hypotheticals he was given a lot of situations on whether or not he believes certain things are possible or whether they were not possible when you look at his final opinion and his ultimate opinion that he expresses to a reasonable degree of medical certainty it's famine a last page of this deposition do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether his activity repetitive activities contributed to his current need for the l five s one surgery this answer i think it all over first back to the march twelfth two thousand incident that this is opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty the other pinions are possibilities of the other situations or possibilities that was not his opinion his unequivocal opinion was that march two thousand and eight was the accident and again i would just bring you back to the manifest a manifest weight question on the commission gets to decide they are the ultimate judge of credibility they get to decide who they believe in this case they did not believe the petition er when comparing his testimony with the records medical records in this case and they came down in favor of what the medical records actually were devoid of and we believe their decision was correct we would urge you to affirm the commission decision with respect to the may two thousand i thank you very much  when he was cutting the trees he just noticed that that's when his pay zero increased i would suggest to you that if he did report a repetitive trauma claim timely and he would discuss the work activities that he was performing i would also ask the court to note that when he was having therapy in april two thousand and eight he actually told her this that he would call the cars and he was still having leg pain at the time so he did mention his work activities to this  was any fact in this case i don't believe it was reasonable for the commission to discount his testimony the arbitrator had a chance to see and i understand the commission makes its own decisions there of the arbit obviously found his testimony credible i don't think credibility is really an issue here the fact that he did not mention his countrymen problems to the doctors when he went for a spider bite or other medical conditions is is also i think a red herring she was well i think it's generally within the commonality of most people these days that we will see a doctor for a specific event you're seeing them for a specific about and are actually possible but certainly the work he was doing in the tree cutting on he felt work were continuing are contributing factors to his problem and aggravated the symptoms for that reason we believe that the the commission