manifest weight and must be baked the case is also against the manifest weight of the evidence when an officer completion is clearly evident or when the findings appear to be unreasonable arbitrary or not based on the evidence in this case all or if those standards are applicable but in addition to the job at continental tire misdirecting operated a pumpkin talk on his dates of injury were december thirtieth two thousand and two to life sixteenth two thousand and four and may fifth two thousand by when you started the pumpkin patch in two thousand it started as a quarter of an acre in two thousand and one it was two acres and in two thousand and two it was up to ten acres two thousand and two was the year his first twenty injury the pumpkin farm continued to grow and by two thousand and three it was twenty eight thousand at that same level until two thousand and six when it was reduced to fifteen acres the article that is referenced the newspaper article by mr north late that that's also in the record indicated that in addition to the twenty dr babies opinion was based on the fact that it was his belief that mr wright since operation of the pumpkin farm could see that no more than twenty three days a year he believed it was one day to plant the pumpkins one day to fill the farm and three weeks to harvest the pumpkins the evidence in this record clearly establishes that this pumpkin venture was more than twenty three days in fact the pumpkin farm which began in mid may and go all the way until the end of october and fall and up until two thousand and three well in two thousand and before two thousand and three all of this play in taking tilling hoeing weeding was done by hand on a twenty acre pumpkin far that's not going to take twenty three days this obviously was a procedure that took a great amount of time and effort by mr grech saying and that is noted in the newspaper article that was have listed two thousand and four so it's not so much an issue  if we didn't have facts that dr baden was unaware of or misinformed of because his information regarding the pumpkin farm paper misdirecting and we were dealing with everybody on the same playing field that would be fine but what's also interesting to that his opinion which change so the commission basically took dr bay's opinion that said i think it was the apex operator failed to take into consideration the fact that dr beatty specifically stated that if it was more than just twenty three days is opinion would change and he didn't look at all of the other evidence in the record which included three of his employees a newspaper article the treating doctor dr online who originally believed it was from his job as an apex operator and it isn't  before the pumpkin patch began and when he reviews the article and sees that the the condition arose after not before like dr on five he specifically says this isn't work related is on treating that was spent the pumpkin farm and all of the testimony from all of the employees and the newspaper are clearly indicated the amount of time and ignore the fact that dr brady said hey if he worked more than twenty three days my opinion is going t racial you talk so well he was also implying that he was supervising everybody and wasn't doing the work as well which is another thing that he told dr baby which was clearly untrue based on the testimony of this his coworkers  is patients farming activity which apparently was floated in the newspaper article is backbreaking work when i ask the patient about the article according to the patient he has a small patch of farm which is used to program cancer even though his family owns a large acreage a farm he always hires help to do the picking and actually only four to six weeks out of the air the patient helps out a little bit and the right elbow symptom predated the farming activity he then goes on to ask him he gives him a twenty five lifting restriction twenty five pounds lifting restrictions and said he wants to see the and he asked the patient to produce the documentation that his elbow claimed today that the farming activity the only other note from doctor on then comes on october seventeenth stating her doctor and he cannot dictate anything to help mr x in case see news article in back of chart advice how much you work he testified that it was a hobby and it was mostly supervisory and it was the testimony of his coworkers that basically showed the amount of time and energy he was putting into the pump and farm and it completely contradicted what he to receive benefits for workers compensation case you have three coworkers one of which was his brother a newspaper reporter all of which have no stake in this whatsoever on it why would they have wide i mean to some extent the credibility but it also he been working as an apex operator even driving a truck for six months but he was completely symptomatic and the only thing that could have been causing those symptoms was the pumpkin farm because he wasn't doing the apex operation now if it were going toward him benefits or working as an apex operator you know the the first line to overcome the hurdle is going to be he will work in the job he wasn't  needed was how he came out of them you know a good result following a surgery is typically the best evidence that the surgery was reasonable and necessary and in this case he comes back and says i can't i still can't do this i can't do that i'm still in him to travel to see dr baden and if you look at the general pyar case the original case the guy had to go to work river to get surgery because no one else was willing to form the surgery the commission has followed the general higher pay for the general case and found that it was required for him for some reason to travel to get is an issue that has come before the commission on numerous occasions this was before this court travel expenses what may be the smallest award in this case is actually very important it may seem like a small issue but if it does go to the ability as and in this case mr bailey did what was reasonable and customary in that area in mount vernon just like many other areas throughout the state which is treat with a specialized doctor that's still within the local region in st louis and  well i i think the evidence in the record and the evidence that was presented arbitration shows that the times that he was injured and reported injuries at the point he was not in fact working in fact to his injuries were  deposition that he relied solely on the article provided to him by cottle tired he knew about this pumpkin patch but didn't bother to ask mr retching what he actually did and if you look at the credibility has more knowledge of what's more likely to cause an injury the supreme court ruled that it's within the purview of the commission to decide which medical testimony used except where causation is disputed and again i would remind this court that  and i think it is connell tyrus has tried very hard to this case about something funny and we're here three days after how we eat and it's kind of ironic that we're talking about pumpkins issue only so i make no separate address of that issue and again i would ask the commission i regarding travel expenses the system which i would i would ask the sport this is an issue that comes apart often in front of a commission there were conservative measures that were employed and he was fine and if you look at when he had his player out all of his flare ups were during this season from may to october whether or not he was working a backstop if you look at his initial the first one from the december of december two thousand and two he was fine by february which means the only thing he was doing at that time was the apex operator job so instead of him becoming more symptomatic he became less symptomatic and when he's in the pump farm he becomes more symptomatic it makes no sense now that i have a question if you see even a very slightly symptomatic with this condition well he's working  not as far as i'm concerned because it comes down to the connection as to a what is causing the condition and b what is aggravate this the evidence in this case does not support that it was caused by the job and you can't say it was aggravated by the job when the evidence clearly show he doesn't fit the symptoms actually get better while he's working the apex job as opposed to the other side so you don't have an aggravation if the symptomology is getting better now if you went to work if in your scenario he worked all this and he kept getting worse during this would think it would be confessed but in this case that's not what we have in fact when he talked about that he testified or or said that it happened the night ninety nine if the petitioner specifically went to dr baden and said my symptoms began in december of two thousand and two he's went in and told it that's why this is a credibility issue is depending on who mr x thing is talking to depends on how this case ends and you can't say one thing to you and ignore something written down because it's no longer beneficial to you and that's exactly what the commission  think want to hang their hat on doctor dr beatty and his knowledge of the place he didn't have any idea what the guy was doing a job he didn't know how long he had worked that he'd never seen the machine you know i think it's a continental tire too i've never seen it that doesn't make me an expert but what you have to look at is the evidence in this case does not support a finding that his condition was caused or aggravated by his job it general fire that was