commission that might be one of the first question who would have what i believe it was so i thought i'd address right off the bat there is absolutely no evidence to support the commission's decision in this case even under any any malice which standard there's nothing here to support commission's findings there's no conflicting medical evidence at all i don't believe so your honor i believe the conflicts that the commission then i think the medical testimony supports that finding a fact there is absolutely no causation of opinion that states that this was not the i think it was clear that the doctors were struggling with whether it was a problem related to the left hip or a prosthetic device or whether it was in a particular pathfinding let me put this and that's been printed out by both myself and the employer in the brief but clearly from their exchange it is a stretch to state that the petitioner was talking about his back pain when it's pain for the commission to if infer from that exchange a bit ever citing of credibility that there's just this employee was attempting to them balash his his complaints for some reason argument by saying this is not just about troy difference it's there is no evidence to support the commission's decision the manifest weight of this evidence the status is that this accident aggravated a preexisting condition good medical records that there was those opinions go to the issue of what's wrong i don't believe it's you can make any inference about those doctors opinions issue of causation when what they're dressing is wors there is there is nothing in the record that supports a no causation finding and i don't believe the commission's interpretation of a bad exchange is an appropriate interpretation if if you're going to make an adverse ruling on credibility it should be clear of that it should it shouldn't be something where just about destruction would point to it absolutely false as a as an inferen three bases for the commission's decision this case one was if either is a preexisting degenerative low back condition had been confirmed on the prior m r i to they found mr cole is not credible in ancillary to that they looked at the medical records which talked about what his one of the things that's been made a big issue here is the testimony of page thirty one of the of the record and that's that she made the transcript page five seventy the record that's what john went through  pain saying i had pain from the time this accident happened and it happened it was it was going on in the low back pain i heard everywhere by the time i fell i heard everywhere my head hurt i back hurt everything hurt we looked at  that i've had the back pain since the time of this fall when you put all that together that provides the necessary evidence that we can look at in the commission's decision to support the comment on page two where they said he testified that he has low back pain ever since the accident that's what he told dr russell and you can read that one for petition you can read that on page thirty one of the transcript when you couple that with the other testimony i think there's evidence in the of all they failed to present any evidence to support their burden prove that this is causing delay second of all you can look at the medical advocates from the date of the sacks and say where is the evidence where is the indication that this gentleman suffered any back problems based on the medical records from the time of his failed in two thousand and eight when he decided to tell dr russell that yeah all my blowback problem is related to the saxon answers up there and the commission did an excellent job of walking through that on page two going through the six physicians or is there a smoking gun medical opinion from these gentlemen whether said doctor to relieve a medical certainty is this condition cause related no there's not one of those in here but the medical evidence that the commission relied upon which was the absence of any fin it might be fractionally worse than before i am not certain given the quality of the films is different that tells nothing you cannot look at that and say all this condition is worth based on these films doctor same video i don't know i can't really tell the film that one cannot rely on these arguments were made to the trier of fact in this case a commission the commission considered these arguments that are being made today they consider the evidence they consider dr russell's opinions and he rejected those pains and they left leg the left hip as a matter of fact dr russell is softening treatment for the problem of the like that's what he's that's what he's offering treatment for just so happens i think we're seeing this many times back problems cause  this is really trying to search this commission does for some basis to deny this man's compensation when there isn't any medical or legal justification for doing so