entry our position on this is that this decision was based on speculation and conjecture not believe there was sufficient evidence in the record to support that and ten the year before the records show that he had several year history of worsening of the low back problems with the worsening in the last two years there was no mention of any injury causing this worsening what about the commission saying that the record shows is that this guy had the event we don't dispute that on seven thirteen eleven and but our point is that it was a very minor flare up it's all the flare  and it might i was going to going to wind it sister back problems but the point is he had a lot of back problems before this flare up the doctor basically says i treated him for this condition on these days and twenty then and these days i'm twenty and leavening seven fifteen july twentieth eleven it was always just back pain with no radiation and the point i made in the brief i'll make now is i think there was an intervening incident that kept off those symptoms at that time and it's an intervening accident because it's symptoms change we don't have proof by way of all this happened we don't have that but the truth the change in symptoms and the change in what the doctor did means to october and what d m g showed in october what they didn't do what they failed to feel was take into consideration the pills that were taken in twenty fourteen twenty fourteen films and the interpretation of that it doesn't show that any more ok and they didn't they didn't address that and no doctor addressed them what are we off so if you just argue this in the absence of any evidence why would say of course not but there is evidence and that's why i was saying there was medical evidence of a change in his symptoms given the fact he was not so pretty it studies not you know for an epidural or any any of that treatment stayed the same as it had been and he was off work six days and the i just don't understand how that can be done because there's a big difference in the treatment well it might be different if you had anderson coming in and sort of what this was of medically implausible that that incident could have resulted in the is he now a surgical candidate we need some explanation of that and it's not there it's not there why is the fact that he needs surgery over seventeen months after this accident why is that related to the incident in july twentieth eleven without some testimony saying that we don't have that it's not there i just think that's a lead again speculation conjecture whatever  this guy had back problems for a long time doctor said she mentions normal degeneration and the guy had problems in twenty minutes said he had problems for years and it got worse in the last two years no mention of any injury he's degenerate the point is that is clear but there is no testimony to say is this degeneration is this related to some what happened in july of tw on that basis i think you know there's enough not sufficient evidence to support what the commission did what they said finding a causal relationship and that should be reversed thank you very doctors is the fact that he had a condition and now he's got to the point that he needs surgery many times when a picture with the back you conservative conservative to your right of options that's w a non surgical condition to a surgical and on top of that there's no explanation or testimony or opinion that the surgery is related back to the july twent