no causal connection between that accident that ultimately resulted in the loss of petitioners test a call is against the manifest weight of the evidence we believe that that record in this case shows  a plethora of evidence that the arbitrator based his decision on the fact that petitioner did not use enough significant force and his description of how the accident occurred such that it would cause the type of injury that we're dealing with there and we believe that this and trent's was a reasonable based upon the medical records in this case as well as petitioners testimony this is a case as a petitioners attorney that i find where the medical histories share are very precise and very clear to all the medical providers that he was using a significant amount of force while at work at the time that this alleged incident happened the claimant clearly testifying that but apparently dr branch testified that he act of closing struggling with the van door did dr branches report is not clear as to what the mechanism of injury is what he's describing because although petitioner gave dr branch a history of what happened and we report recounts is that this was a difficult transport of a patient and saw one would have to believe that dr branch when he says mechanism of the injury is referring to those medical histories as well that show of force of forcible action on the part of petition to open that door so i don't know that we can say with with relative clarity whether dr branch is referring to what petitioner told his medical providers when he says that the mechanism of injury was not a competent cause of the incident but we can agree that the claimant bears the alluding back to dr branch what it is report illuminates as well as the decision of the arbitrator none of them discuss in any detail the histories the consistent histories epoch titian are provided regarding how this incident took place now i understand that they have they have a right to decide not to accord much if any weight to those histories but i find it significant the fact that they don't even bother to discuss them and what impact that and what relevance that has to their all of them at the situation and finding no accident and no compensable a t i think it's hard to ignore those medical histories and discussing how one comes about a rationale for the decision that's made in this case you also relied in the chain of events there a right that's correct in that the claim had no prior problems there's a work accident as a condition of bill being so you're also hanging your head on that there right that's correct and i think that if i can a lever to little further on that i think that i believe that we sustain the burden of proving a chain of events the area of causation not withstanding dr branches opinions because i don't believe that dr branches opinions have a foundation of credibility such that that would impact that chain of events not repeat its burden of proof and in showing a relationship between the alleged incident and the loss of his testicle there's two facets to that argument the st which we just discussed as dr branch finding that  he didn't believe that the mechanism of injury was a competent caused of the alleged of the injury and then ultimately removal of petitioners right testicle the nd is more of a argument that the the delay on the part of petitioner and getting the treatment is what resulted in the loss of that testicle obviously i feel that there's a couple things at play here it waited a couple days to get initial treatment and then another six days before he underwent the surgery to remove the testicle i think that even if you find that that was your honour's i think that there is a manifest way know the evidence in this case strongly compels me to argue to you that this decision should be reversed on the issues of x and causal connection in this case should be remanded back to the commission on the other issues at play here thank you thank you m and that was adopted by those commissions commission panel and affirmed by the circuit court and that decision is sound and sufficient and it's based on sufficient credible evidence in the record to support that what do you discern to be the bottom line basis for the commission's move and you have you know as we said there was an accident clearly of some kind of thing was a condition well being was an operation and yet  compensation was denied what do you believe the rationale for the commission was in denying compensation i think if you look at the arbitrators decision the arbitrator had an opportunity to evaluate and any court demonstration of whether a claim of it and one thing that wasn't mentioned and counsel's argument and one thing i think that is very important in this case is that the claimant never moved his lower he only moved his upper back you readjusted but he never moves that lower body i think that's very important here especially considering the condition if you're only moving your upper body and how would you to develop some sort of condition and your lower body it seems to be seems to sort of strain credibility in that case furthermore i think that the commission decision does not only rely on the back of branch you know t substitute your own judgment for the judgment of the mission and how they interpreted dr branches review of the record back to branches understanding of the mechanism of entry here i think that's really the bas of the claimant that there may be some sort of congenital reason as to why he would have developed that mission so i think that there is some indication that it's likely this could have been caused by some sort of well the other indication is that the claimant did not indicate any sort of pain after he closed the door but only indicated that sort of pain or pinch whenever he got into the vehicle  either you know but i'm sure to answer your question the only other sort of the only other sort of cause that that may be pointed to in sort and the record is is the indications from back in france regarding the general nature of potential congenital nature of the condition so can you clarify just one point one of the basis for the denial of compensation was alleged delayed on the part of the claimants seeking treatment correct correct that was yes correct but with that basis alone religion is a basis for denying somebody compensation and that was the reason well i think we also need to look at the records themselves because the records you know force i don't remember the exact date but i do remember the day of the week this incident allegedly occurred on the monday it worth a full day on the monday to do work work all day on tuesday way to the doctor and the afternoon evening on wednesday and was advised that that that he needs to seek emergency medical treatment immediately because there was a potential the fear that he may have testicular instead of doing that he waited and didn't go to treatment until friday i think that had he presented or that emergency medical treatment as instructed by its position at the time that result may be different now how does that square with the well some subtle body of law that says to recover from work related accident it doesn't have to be the only cause of the soul even the primary c  also looking at dr branch's opinion if you know of a medical professional that opportunity to evaluate that mechanism to determine whether or not that mechanism which was described to him by the claimant would have caused that resulted in that that is not a reason to overturn the decision that the end court demonstration from petitioner was a significant factor in the commission's decision but i want to look at the in court demonstration and place it in totality with all of the evidence so in court demonstration the arbitrator in his decision indicated that the petitioner just simply used his arms in his hands the slide the door closed but we need to keep in mind that that was a simulation he gave that in court demonstration that he had to adjust his stance to grab the handle and apply in his words more force to the closing of the door secondly you have the initial history given to the that activity creates or makes it like waiting for the conditioner that's there or look at the initial examination your honor that was taken took place two days after the incident the physical examination specifically documented testicular tenderness and also a strain of the right renal muscle so there you have a physical that creates this condition there is no expert medical opinion in this case but if you look at the chain of events of i discussed in terms of the incident a short period of time the constant complaints the consistent histories of treatments and then the ultimate diagnosis i think that that establishes a sufficient chain of events for causal connection thank you that's all