where we believe if you understand the actual background and you understand the medical terminology on the case it is clear that the lower court's decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence now mr comedy is a snow on the ground january thirty first the day of the accident mr carmody was working on the second story of an unfinished house he was called downstairs to the first level  trussing in the house now he decided instead of using a ladder should he send from the second level to the first level using partition blocks essentially wooden blocks nailed to the wall of the house  the critical air vent mr comedy made in choosing this approach of descent is that when he got to the first block he chose to jump off of it and instead of hitting the ground he hit a  tarp that was covering a hole in the ground so mr carmody fell about ten to twelve feet when he fell he landed on his feet and thereafter slid backwards landing on his on his buttocks and on his hands to catch these are all very very important facts now i want to talk briefly about mr comedies preexisting conditions and forgive me if i explain a little bit about metal terminology but again the roughly from the base of the school to the top of the shoulders generative of course meaning that this condition gets worse over time mr comedy has bilateral arthritis in both of his hands he owner neuropathy which refers to problems with a nerve that extends roughly from the wrist to the shoulder and in addition to that mr carmody has low back pain and has experienced low d factual evidence in the medical reports it also confirms that there was no head or neck trama he was neurologically intact after this accident meaning there were no problems with these in the chills and acute there is a compression fracture that shows up but this compression fracture does not relate to the cervical spine area it relates to the low back happens and a few months later symptoms just appear and manifest themselves that would be true in the case of for instance a whiplash injury that is not the case here mr carmody fell on his on his butt and on his lower back we don't dispute that but then he later several months later complains of neck problems these are unrelated injuries his accident did not cause what was already an existing specifically that the fact that the symptoms did not manifest until i believe it was four or five months after the accident specifically show that it is not medically possible for the accident to have caused his condition if the testimony  the treating physician is not looking for the cause he's just trying to help his to be clear he did make a note in one of his reports that the fall caused a preexisting condition to be symptomatic however we know that this is based on no proof this is based on incomplete medical testimony where where we have an instance of mr carmody not giving dr limb only a full picture of his full medical history the fact that he has all of these conditions and all of these preexisting problems correct and again although he said that i urge this court to keep that in its proper context dr lemole he made that statement more or less as a footnote not as i am diagnosing this patient  if you read dr atkins report you understand dr atkins report and you combine that with your own interpretation of the facts and of the medical evidence you find that clearly this decision is against the manifest way because you believe or credible no i do not believe one doctor to be more credible or better than the other i simply think that they  though it was largely unseen to magic beforehand does manifest symptoms i mean you do have pain in your hands mr mr carmody testified to that that he did have arthritis and as has he did have some pain in his neck prior to we're not disputing access here again this was an inexperienced carpenter who we believe defied not only safety but conventional common sense and good judgment and jumping off of a makeshift ladder the hole was also surrounded by two by fours again this this this particular dispute is not over accident and how outrageous was the conduct my point is simply that our  inappropriate in addition to that we had and we still maintain a good faith dispute as to causal connection as i just articulated earlier and additionally the credibility of the claimant was at issue he lied in his compensable correct and for those reasons we respectfully request that this honorable court reverse the commission in the circuit court decision on the issues of causation and penalties and this or to ignore that instruction and to submit its own it's own credit to sign its own credibility to the witnesses to conflict in the evidence and to basically set aside commissions decision that's not appropriate this was a three zero decision in which the commission indicated that the review of the evidence indicated that it was simply a close case that no other decision was appropriate this was an incident where the petitioner fell ten twelve feet through hole he landed on his back he was taken from the scene in placed in a cervical collar he was evalu prescribed m r i showed a herniated disc in the cervical spine he was also remained in the hospital for four days receiving treatment on both his back as well as cervical spine he complained of pain to the cervical spine you complained of headache during that stay he was this charge with a cervical collar hard cervical collar is what was a hard back brace and was diagnosed with a cervical co rejected just based on the very facts of the case and the medical records that were submitted so i guess there's ample evidence in this case this is for the commission's findings this court has also given in this case they responded never paid any compensation they didn't pay any t v they didn't pay the emergency room bill they didn't pay the hospital bill they didn't pay the a m t bill council is incorrect and in that state injured in a place where the worker may be reasonably in the performance of a duty and while filling those duties any good faith basis that the respondent may have had in this case would evaporate when they discussed the facts and circumstances of this case with their former inject phase he testified in this case but he certainly was a bill to the respondent prior to that and he testified the petitioner was instructed to go to the first back that wasn't the reason for his injury the reason for his injury was falling through the paper covered hole that was covered with it that does he have a right going to face argument and he does have a right to make a good faith argument except for the line of cases for the last thirty years that says that a violation of the safety rules he's not in good faith defense if fisher is in the course of his employment and doing his job when the violence at sea the other thing i think it's interesting is the fact that no matter whether or not he climbed on the wall or whether he used the latter none of those actions would have been a safe action the testimony in the record in this case is that the employer didn't provide ask this court right guidance is here with regard to the average weekly wage in this case we know that section ten as well as the suggester case tells us that you look at the fifty two week period however if the petition when there is no disputed issues it's a question of wall here it's simply a matter of math there was no there's no objection and the respondent doesn't intend if there is anything any dispute with regard to the wages that were interior shortages or the i'm required to do is establish what his regular work week is what he's known for you want us to use the other method in waters to divide it then you've got to tell us how many days he missed so that we believe it's thirty nine thirty and point ninety nine we've i don't have a set from you but i know that it's simply a matter of math in terms of what the hours were for the for the various week there was no including there was no inclusion of overtime in that it was  friday and more calendar days so i mean we know that he worked less the forty hours a week but we don't know that in those weeks he was the calendar day of work if a guy who works for hours in a day has he they didn't change your diet i agree with that but then the question then becomes what is the sufficient proof to establish that he's work less than a forty hour work week no it's not the forty hour work week he's missed five calendar days don't get to the forty hour work with not appropriate i did say and i know that i've pointed out i recognize that they don't have presidential values but i also think that given the given the issues in the case with regard to whether or not be a good faith basis i think they are they do have some  blocks that were haphazardly nailed to the wall and again we have testimony that this is not a safe practice that the defendant himself was aware that this is  is that is that is completely untrue and that is contradicted in the record defendant's coworker descended on a letter in order to get to the petitioner to help him  look closer at the medical evidence because it is our distinct understanding that if this court interprets the medical evidence and the record the only possible conclusion