industrial commission in an accident and an act that plainly this but what we already doing is that they have for just the testimony of the petitioner without horse finding medical opinion that it was changed t petition must prove that a chain of events which demonstrates a previous condition of good health then an accident and subsequent injury resulting from their is that what would limit that rule stating that you don't need my own opinion we're also arguing and this case of the petitioner own had prior medical treatment which she could not or she denied on cross examination but later changed a story with the evidence and file that showed in june of two thousand and eight she had would contend that the medical records in september of early september two thousand night shows that the petitioner was treating for bilateral lower shruti complaints and it's not clear if it was for the near or not and i would think that would take the medical pain in the case that showed that she had a clear lower from an exam which happen to be three days after the accident and when she testified at trial she said that she had immediate onset of swelling and pain in both her knees which was september twenty ninth the first after the accident three days later show that this is inconsistent with her testimony she also has five different accident histories or lack thereof when she does report to the medical facility october first she doesn't report an accident at all actually which is three days after the accident on october fourth she does state that she fell and injured both the left or right knee on october sixth two thousand and nine  testified yes i had pain and swelling at times back then that continued all the way through to the date of arbitration and when she went to the october first visit actually she made no work history made she did stay to work x a history she had a clean bill of health for the lower extremities on the medical record and so they really should see him and told her first she was at a crossroads medical facility on october first and that's she's maintain medical visit is also consistent with her september ninth two thousand and nine a medical visit for lower pretty problems and she also stated that she's had bio knee pain for two to three years prior to arbitration  which is consistent with the medical records and so based on the record it's obvious that base because of her ongoing  accident and then after the accident is inconsistent with her history and how the accident itself happened that she did not present a type of accident with a good bill of health that it doesn't show subsequent disability because she appeared on october first without any problems and then after sorry and then also that her firm and the only thing that gave a written opinion was the dissent that also stated what i'm arguing today and so based all of these factors i argue that where there's a quote this situation because of the previous medical treatment because of the accident because of the on three or four different occasions maybe this case would have been arbitrary ten times and lost seven of those the fact of the matter is the opposite result here is not legally and therefore based on the standard or this or that sure would have been nice but been nice for me handling the pics on the field to know that i had a doctor's testimony connecting everything up make a nice pretty package and probably wouldn't be here now but the fact of the matter is this morning previously about the expert opinions in these cases there's no rule out there that an expert opinion is required this court i don't think should now make a rule that an export of expert opinion is required of thing causation is outside the realm of the knowledge of the lay person that's not what we're dealing with that's the standard in a civil case that's presented in front of a jury the commission is charged with being that is when you have higher medical treatment you have inconsistent medical histories when you have inconsistent testimony and you have medical records that are in our contradicted by the petitioners testimony at trial i think in those situations an expert is needed to review the histories the actual medical condition and to come to a conclusion because of in this case the  then i guess on the facts themselves you know it's not unusual but when you have situations where the petitioner testifies at trial that she had no complaint or that she had swelling and pain immediately in the first visit she has no pain complaints and then doesn't make an x in history no