the low back i believe the record is clear that there is sufficient evidence of record for the commission to a phone call connection between the back condition and the work accident it's up to the commission to weigh the evidence it's up to the commission to make and she talked about having increasing back pain in the weeks following her work and saying there was no dispute that she was working full time prior to that in the months leading up to her work accident and the history of  similar history of back similar back problems was confirmed by chiropractor dr daniel roach who testified that he had treated her for some minor back problems in the past but the this was not something distinctly new and different evolving inflammatory process he identified a large number herniation he explained mechanism of being the development of symptoms physical exam findings and radiology testing all so for that is that  sustained this lamar herniation as a result of this work injury and additionally the commission is free to give little weight to the opinion of dr welner regarding the back in particular she even though she testified that she does back  injury again as long as a mental condition flows from as a natural consequence from the workouts and the sufficient evidence around her for the commission to have found a causal connection here in particular employee ankle brace that she and she fell into his her her need gave way i think that's a fish that's sufficient both medically and factually for the commission to have concluded the fact that a fall injury was consistent with and as a result of the work in to future medical treatment really the same arguments apply the commission could find the opinion doctor for now when it comes to treatment of the of the back so this officially here identified a large permeation he explained the magnetism and how the symptoms from that our nation shoulder is also also appropriate he testified regarding the rebirth of his understanding of how these symptoms evolved the weakness in the that resulted in the fall and injury to the shoulder and she needed additional work up  should we reverse the people i think the first took first of all i think the basis of the commission its determination is is flawed they've they've made a factual finding that i believe is just completely  and his deposition testimony clearly relates the gluteal spreading the strain so even if we even if as the commission seem to suggest that the employer may have had a basis to dispute treatment for the l injury to the surgery that was to be recommended by dokoupil net the fact that dr phillips identifies an injury he identifies the need for restrictions and he identifies that she's not at maximum  important proven gives him no basically no basis to have terminated the t t d benefits and we look back to the arbitrators whole order of those penalties and that's exactly what he was looking at he wasn't looking at a denial of the medical treatment if that's the case it still did not make her whole she still we still see a significant on cable or t t d benefits up through the day of the of the trial so even even if we say ok they advanced and i believe there was a credit for approximately ten thousand dollars there's still a money game paid t t t balance of in the neighborhood of about forty thousand dollars so i don't see many i don't think that makes her whole and i think just the