bed the consideration of the served by injuries be limited to a cervical strain and if i could start for a minute with the remain on permanent yeah i think that will help put everything into context as you're aware the commission here awarded fifty percent of the man as a percent of a person for three distinct types of injuries we had it c m j injury with with some surrounding injuries to the jaw we had a shoulder injury and we had a hole in your we're not disputing that those injuries exist the problem that we have with the permanency award in this case is that they did not walk through those and say actually percent for the t m j why were the shoulder inzy for the cervical they to slump them together now you're saying well why is that why is that a big deal to be ordered to do percent currency why can't you attack that well the problem is i'm speculating my argument that the decision is against the man it's this way to the us when i don't know what they attributed the percentages to for the various injuries because every time i say they awarded too much for prefers a permanent seat on on t m j or too much on cervical the proper response back would be behind you know dealt with that issue and broke that out and i think the it's a similar argument i was on counsel in the courtroom this morning i think this is similar to what the court did in court bill energy when you took a look at the factors a and whether or not the commission properly explained those factors i think the argument there was hot how can you argue that it's of against a man this way if you don't know what they relied upon and why i think the same argument applies here i'd be happy to supplement than specific but i think the commission can in areas where the where the act itself doesn't break it down into a restore finger albo or an arm but in a situation like this where everything falls within that open range of of a person as a whole how are we ever supposed to attack that because every time i say they awarded too much for service oh it was just a strain you can come back if it wasn't well they may only awarded two percent and the rest of it was on t m day soon as i come back and say they awarded too much on t m j they made you could come back and say well they awarded twelve percent on the day and the shoulder and the cervical were what constituted the rest of the war how am i ever supposed to credibly come assigning the percentages for and you can keep it under a person as a whole disk give us something darby from now the second part of that argument is simply this if we're going to send the case back for consideration then for a breakdown or spelling out of percentages it's our position that on the issue of the cervical in that the record here is overwhelmingly clear that this is nothing more than a surgical strike and again you know as counsel said in the first argument we're very aware of the manifest wa some six or seven years prior then when we look at the medical that we've pointed out in our brief i think that gives us that push over the analysis on how we do show an opposite result clearly apparently we have a doctor we have d rank who initially diagnosis this is a cervical strain he looks at the m r i that was performed with then a month or so after the accident he says he didn't see anything abnormal he diagnosed as a strain he said when he looks at the film the results are clear this is a strain we don't see any indication of a of a disk ball we don't see anything supporting with the opposite view we had dr martin doing a cervical ion meet the following spring and he says he's reviewed the film to see some indication on the film of the degenerative disk disease but he very clearly says i do not relate that to the accident because if you look at the data films taken compared to the data the accident you would not see that level of generation in that such a short window so we have another   well what we've got subjective complaints of ridiculous hoppity and we've got e m p and that says there could be some ridiculous i think it was c six seven and eight yeah six seven eight why isn't that enough he says well if we're doing our analysis that might raise our suspicion he said our next stop is for form an objective study which would be an m r i and she said four of them and they're all naked so i'm not finding any objective evidence to support court my name is steve williams i represent the  had an injury to her shoulder she had an injury to her jaw which resulted in t m j dysfunction she had an injury to cervical spine and she also had an upper back problem which was a mild  words should be second reason why this should be sent back to be apportioned is that all these conditions went into the same box and the same story around and came up with the f c c and the  commission and the arbitrators file based a large amount of their decision on what the f c c said so i don't think you can say that in f c especially in this close of a body part that we're taking out the cervical spine that it all comes all together into one one one and the other the other thing is to is the commission the arbitrator warning or you them and then the commission raises fifty of man and the reason why they did that was because this was a loss of occupation could you ask the question of sure you could ask that question but i think the doctor would would reply to you that you wouldn't have a valid f c if you took out one particular are his in the s c they just don't test the shoulder because the whole  review that because i think that the weight of the evidence is this shows that a decision of fifty percent of a man is appropriate in this case the petitioner had no prior work restrictions  had no prior conditions she had no prior jaw surgery she had no prior shoulder surgery should know f c she had no injections she had a pre employment physical which showed no abnormalities whatsoever occupational medicine doctor while she found head job pain swelling and pain in the jaw so there was neck pain there as well she was diagnosed with t m j dysfunction by dr holmes in november two thousand and six you know to ne eight there's more cervical pain the cervical pain continues in july of zero nine and goes on throughout the record so i don't think that there is a gala even if there is a gap i think the gap is small and i think that the evidence supports the fact that th ok certainly he noticed complaints and made remarks with respect to that but that was not his area of specialty we do think this is a case where it would have been very simple to articulate what the percentages are we understand that the man is a whole person as a whole it's meant to cover multiple types of injuries at times into that the air is a council did properly identified but in order for us to ever review that they've got to be able and through examination of the f c eat you could you could force it through a physician dr do you have an opinion if we're considering only the cervical injury would this individual be able to work based on the i think  sometimes when you know where the injuries are and how close they are in body parts where it is going to be very difficult to distinguish it is because of the arm is because of the neck but that's only half the battle it doesn't mean we can force the commission only you can do that i can ask the doctor questions like that all day and even get speculation with the commission just wants it together i'm still in the same spot him today that has come from think