straightforward mr jones suffered an accident september nineteenth two thousand and three when she fell off a forty five foot ladder and landed on her left knee she was diagnosed with the patellar tendon contusion  conservative treatment consisting of physical therapy almost in size and pain medicine or treatment concluded her to arbitration on september fifteenth two thousand and five now this last visit on september fifteenth two thousand by heart to the original arbitration hearing and this will be organized will be explained later dr shelburne stated in this jones that she had structurally normal knee and told miss jones that there was nothing further she could cause damage to her knee this case went to trial in front of an arbitrator on april seventeenth two thousand and six and the decision was not appeal and became final on june twenty fourth two thousand and six mr jones received twelve point five percent  university of illinois case that was cited to you by mr jones attorney however the facts of that case are different the ruling hope in that university of illinois case was that a injured employee's testimony is a self itself sufficient in order to find causation however it is also dependent based on the facts of the case and the university of illinois decision she had continuous treatment after her accident for which the doctor he decided that that would be an option that they could proceed with so i think that there are questions concerning her credibility that the commission that there are discretion and they consider her to be credible but the medical evidence besides for her testimony can cerny her own perceived deficit's and that's why i think that we need to take a look at her statements are fine to turn if you don't want to review the medical evidence but you also have i don't think her testimony is sufficient here but that medical evidence contradicts it where the employer can require though there's not a money under the worker's compensation act that we can require individual in into an employee to undergo treatment in fact i don't have a case law front of me but there's cases that have indicated and there is also dispute as discussed earlier that she did happen in fact have needed actions post arbitration i was over we would ask that when you review the commission's decision they discussed that pretty arbitration in fact had injections but the commission trial she admitted should never have perjured actions and also the medical evidence shows she never did have those injections and there's extended getting treatment based on these facts and in the absence of medical expert testimony or opinions we believe this jones felt prove her condition was still closely connected to the original accident or this course not warranted in this case based on the facts the medical evidence as documented the commission rely solely on those jones subjective testimony and we believe that the subject of complain totally inconsistent you allege is with the claim is subjective claims how do you respond to that specific or i don't believe that argument is valid grounds right i do not believe that the medical evidence is inconsistent with her subjective complaints she received a course of medical treatment for a left knee pain that was the same issue that she had time of the initial arbitration and there is nothing in the medical records to overcome the commission's credibility determination when it came to her description of her complaints and how this affected her on a day basis or to make this happen treatment he's placing a lot of emphasis on well i think the commission consider that i think it's clear from their decision they know in their decision the auto accident miss jones bound terribly testified about the auto accident she also testified that it did not in any way affect her left knee and the commission what we've heard they have every right to do that as the judge of credibility of witnesses in this fall from a ladder several years ago this is clearly references to the original injury so you have the claimant testifying about the beginning of her problems documented in the record and she's there to free her increased left need hey is there any increase in the number and all well it's it is indicated on the record that she had a prior benefit from injection now i have not seen it in the record any evidence that she underwent injections prior to the nati deny the fact app exists but it is clear that the commission considered back apple tree and they did not find that it was so significant that it broke because of k and she's back preaching for the same problems that she had as a result of this work in worst with them it well i believe that she was compensated that the initial y betrayed him or her problems at that time no i do not think that the compensation or that the initial arbitration i think it's clear issue that it did not compensate her for a future worsening of her condition this is not similar to what other cases where for example there's medical evidence that a fish there will have to undergo a future total knee replacement in the future and then they come back on the subsequent nineteen age and they have added total knee replacement and i believe this was the the deer case and this is cited with bill another case cited in our  increase in p p d benefits because essentially it was the only difference between the initial letter gratian and now is that she's had this prosthetic implant done and there was no change in how her condition a fact the time of the night paper scene that's the state which will from this case and i do think if you read arbitrator white's decision it's clear that she's not aborting compensation of this woman taking into account the future worsening of her condition  conflicts with her testimony of course and i do not believe that expert medical testimony in any way conflicts with her testimony in this case the claimants testimony is sufficient to sustain an award even in the context of a night in age proceeding and the she was not receiving at the time of the initial arbitration and based on those facts the commission as it was in the finder of fact found that she's saying her burden and she proved that she suffered materially increasing disability it's clearly distinguishable in that regard and once again i do think it's important that you michelle arbitration work in this case it was not a result reviewed it was not challenge that was the amount she was supported based on the condition of the time of her initial arbitration her condition change the opposite conclusion is not readily apparent and i believe that there are a work of an increase i want to see was also supported by the other that's as they found her to be credible and she said she underwent additional medical treatment that she did not ha