the reports of no big pain were mediately transmitted to isn't clear and he began a case of course of conservative tree the important dates are in september of two thousand and  i was performed which demonstrated the existence of the generative changes from the l two to the l five level he was treated then he continued treat with dr corey conservatively he was asked to have an independent medical evaluation on november first by dr earle for dr goldberg felt that mr elmore was suffering from a cervical and  in december of two thousand he has an incident that is home where he's tiling off after taking a shower feels a pop in his back he has an m r i that's taken in january of two thousand and one which in her decision to trigger decision she found that there was a honey in this at the l three o four level that was never documented in any of the medical records we took a timely appeal benefits consisting of the last of the m r i that was performed in two thousand and one in february of two thousand and three mr on more mild this attention for additional benefit all five level you also perform certain testing at the l three o four level this was done in the course of a disc a gram of this could gram was equivocal  he felt that the all three or four level was good pain generated but he testified that it was unrelated to this work injury he did find that yeah death procedure was an appropriate method of treating the annu pain issues and try to ascertain what the source of the pain of the allergy is and that's what dr corley had done repeatedly throughout the course of this case and i did i characterize that to goldberg as being kind of a monday morning based upon the symptoms that the plane had been testifying to and throughout the entire record mr elmore testified to a certain set of symptoms that those symptoms were big pain radiating down treating physician dr corey the evidence and reading them all of his opinion janice testimony is that his opinion simply are not credible and that they cannot be believed and you cannot really find any consistency in his opinions he gave which is related to the worker's comp accident now it's it's impossible to reconcile that with a commission decision which we now have to work with from two thousand to think specifically that it was four or five which is across the way to the accident it's respond that his argument is sort of a human kindness argument look we relied on the doctors we we went to trial originally on the theory of what the medical evidence supporter now as he does more sophisticated technological tests we find out that he actually there was a  i believe in that case it was actually the commission which did in fact award to increase permanency and and did make an award under section one hundred eighty not only increasing the right  commission decision was or is erroneous as a matter of law we believe that the commission here did correctly review the earlier commission decision and applied it apparently the clowns taking the position that the two thousand petitioner's entire lumbar spine and for the right of which which appears to be wrong would happen were we to reverse this decision certainly you can have the generation at other levels years later which are completely independent of your we didn't really get into was the the medical ward under section eight and it is this panel knows if a person is an injury between the original injury and the later medical care corner there is no use if there is no causal relationship between zero three zero four and the work accident and the commission cut off with the the right place i would concede that i would and one other thing is that with regard to this petition it's my position that once the surgery was done on january