proceed thank your honor mitt please the court counsel obviously represented the city of springfield the portion of the commission decision finding and causal relationship between the accident and this guy's right elbow problems is is just wrong it's definitely against the manifest wid the evidence and i would say that at least one commissioner got that one right for the commission majority to be believed if you look at the medical records from two thousand and fifteen or from five different medical facilities or doctors there is no mention of the right deal or cubical tunnel only mentioned is the right hand and wrist and we have to keep in mind  setting aside his speculative answers your honor he specifically said the elbow was not directly traumatized he said he had no documentation that the accident caused or contributed to the cute little tunnel so all he said the original problem of the wrist seemed to resolve but for whatever reason it cropped up at the elbow he said the wrist and the elbow are a few season are a little bit of the distance apart so all in answering the question how did the injury cause a cubicle tunnel he did not look at what dr knew meisters specifically said about the us the information he had from the claimant what they did do has rely on the speculative answers that he gave which of the commission found  had to find him credible to find in his favor look i'm saying are what i'm saying is the medical records don't support that the actual records from the doctors that he saw do not support his version tha he is credible and specifically as i just went through it at present your question your honor dr new meisters testimony does not support finding his elbow injury related to the accident me back to you my sister did not find any problem with the elmo when he st saw this guy he didn't find it until january th team which what nine and a half months after this guy supposedly got hurt margin two thousand and fifteen so there's a big gap in there and you have to believe i have to believe that something happened something else happened on that oh well because it did not show up on the  m september it was not found by dr water in october and when you say something else you were talking about objecting to going into the realm of speculation and conjecture when you say something else must have happened is that not speculation and conjecture well i guess that maybe it is your honor but i don't think so because as i was saying if you don't have a cubicle tunnel finding on the e m t in september you don't have that sound in october and you don't have the owner nerve in the elbow the doctors there's a big grin said the claimant still had numbness even after the original problem resolved because the nerve had been was still having after the resolution of the regional problem because no heaven problems there would be as it was in a different area was causing those problems not being the so i don't think it's the same thing i don't think it was a continuation of problems from same nerve and that's that's where doctors are going about the continued doesn't and  testimony was consistent with all of the credible medical records not not such that it was and thus the commission's finding but not such that it was the credibility but that it was consistent ultimately the this accident directly traumatized the young home or caused or contributed to the cuban tunnel night and still don't understand how they can get around that but my point here is the your question no that one right so it just i'm guessing that happens but you have to look at it and i still think the important thing here is what dr newman has set where you seem to be saying i so many words if i understand there's sort of a missing link here to explain what actually happens but how do we know what the missing link is you said something else must have happened how do we know what that something else is we don't know wh that's we just don't well actually this is evidence that this is interesting because we deal with this issue all the time and we're judging the commission's finding and where it's findings of credibility we have this great deference your argument is that it's consistent with the medical record so we the court has every right to go back and judge for ourselves whether or not our bitter arbitrator  the commission was correct and finding that is consistent with all the medical records we can actually go back and review those ourselves it's a little different than a credibility question that well i mean that up correctly yeah i mean we're still dealing with  that's the way to be evidence here of course but it's what i'm trying to say i guess maybe you know literally not you know your job i think is to look at the evidence and make sure  ringing assuming that he's found to be credible and he did testify that he twisted his arm is there any medical reference there is no medical reference when he  ok thank you thank you description of the accident is on dispute and mr shelton testified three other people were there from the city including his supervisor the city did not call anyone who witnessed the accident to testify the medical records are consistent and in answer to justice hudson's question at the record page fifty seven arbitrator  says that that the petitioner is credible and the medical records are consistent and something i'd like to point out is that each and every medical record describes this accident dr knew my sister found it highly significant that the symptoms began with the accident that they persisted and that they were relieved by his procedure he also said that was causation and i think that's important because there is no evidence that mr shelton had symptoms prior to the occurrence there is no evidence of any intervening cause for these symptoms and there's no evidence to the contrary of the symptoms being relieved in other words a big tree rolled over his hand forces his arm to the ground with pretty significant force he gets symptoms and dr knew my sister fixed them so both doctors here are telling us yeah i could happen like that i'd also like to talk a little bit about the timing issue about when  we st started seeing reports in the medical records of the owner issues and i think it's important that to look at who he went to and when he dr trudeau's report shouldn't just be read at the end for his findings but should be read in the middle and you can find this page one hundred and forty three he talks about all nerve injury i don't think even the doctor s are so expert that they will say how the nerve gets hurt they'll say the nervous hurt let's fix it and that's what dr knew meisters very matter of fact opinion seemed to be which ok he bashes elbow into the ground symptoms started with they were diagnosed as an  nerve injury i did a release and they got better so what we're really talking about it and if you all hit on it is credibility every single one of the city's arguments depends on for a couple of weeks he told the safety officer the safety officer admitted it the safety officer said it was in april that's in the record he went to get treatment and he enough arbitrator pollie associates related not enough the commission says it's related not enough i hope today is a not so i do want to come back to m arbitrator polina he says my arms here are hit the ground and then finally on three hundred and sixty one there was quite a bit of force from probably from the elbow through the ri so this is all undisputed the cases where the commission have been found to have been wrong on credibility have been like the how imperial bond where case where the petitioner contradicted himself and the record three times that's not here in may seem unusual that a log rolling over your hand causes a whole nerve injury but it's not contradict it it happened and we have both opinion doctor saying act that could happen that way so to make a long story short i think that the credibility of the petitioner wants found by the commission they agreed that an accident happened that the injury was related to the accident and that the employer was on notice and i would ask you to affirm that decision  i think that's important the other thing is of course he did not put a lot of paperwork regarding any exit until october that's when he says dean and even at that i need not l and your response to it was that it wasn't that is how it was fortunately ground by the by the law but that he was avoiding the accidents mom and i'm envisioning a quick move to get his arm away and jammed it into the ground that way so the trauma of the force may have been equal by either caused and i thought you were making a distinction between you know being injured by pulling it