evidence i've been doing this for a long time and i've had cases where i appealed where i argued against the mantis with the evidence and the judge of come down on me a couple of times about you know it's up to the commission to the side these type of issues but i've never had a case similar to this in terms of fact and what the commission is recommending in terms of perspective here you could tolerate me for a little bit i would appreciate it but this is an individual who worked for national freight and slipped and fell out of his cap he landed on his box and he said he feared his neck after he was treated in an emergency room and hospital in detroit michigan and x rays of the cervical spine were normal there was no diagnosis for this sort of following he had an m r i done about a month later he returned to his regular job full duty no restriction as a truck driver he then went through a series of physicians in terms of care he was seen by doctor to draw and at that point in time he had no radiating symptoms into his alarm's he had a normal  examination absolutely no findings m r i showed this fall he then testified that he was seeking out a physician to do surgery he identified dr bernstein records show that that was a referral from his dr bernstein did a complete examination and dr bernstein noted he was doing full duty no restrictions totally normal neurological examination no six and it c six seven he read off the recommendation is a two level interior cervical decompression infusion surgery and bernstein then testifies consistent with his report that he did not believe that the completed he had any non surgical walk through the left to alleviate his pain and use of the opinion of the work place the accident caused the injury in the person's cervical spine down into his arms if you look at diagnostic tests than and i think you've heard these arguments before just because this sort of thing is identified doesn't mean that that is recommended physical therapy after reviewing the m r i dr pejorative never recommended surgery dr jane never recommended surgery and in terms of the took dr bernstein's deposition on page twenty four and this is important he testified as to normal sensation you know his exam being totally normal and the question to him was from objective standpoint you have any to you but you got it right here or you got to be had reports off your aida for two there's no question he hung out to dry i have there's no question that there's some bad i and maybe reports and but all based on the fact that the guy was asymptomatic before this is that in totally symptomatic gifter but but the but the problem with it is when you talk about symptomatic or talk about pain everyone agrees in this case that there is no objective finding any damage to the seat five c six c sixty seven when you talk about pain this person since december of two thousand and eight the president continues to work his full  duties without restriction he's gotten no medical treatment since march two thousand and eight he's not taking any pain medication so the question is if he has pain significant is the pain with procedure works you get a needle stuck in your back the person complains when we ask dr bernstein in his deposition about annular tears he admitted that when he looked at the diagnostic studies to test there sure in relieving there is no testimony here by bernstein or any physician that the recommended surgery is going to cure or relieve anything what we know here is we've got a totally functional person that's why i see this is so different than any case i've ever argued when it comes to manic this weight usually they got one doctor having all kinds of positive findings records showing her needed disk inability to war or restrictions in work i'm going hear there's none of this here sin december of two thousand and eight he's worked a very physically demanding job sometimes up to fourteen hours he's got no medical treatment we try this case in july of two thousand and eleven too many half years with no medical care and treatment two and a half years with no medication ok he's still working on restrictive he's not being treated the argument here is all of these facts flying in the face of doing an aggressive surgical procedure and someone who is functioning to have someone who's functioning being up to being able to perform his full duty without any restrictions what what we're doing here is taking someone who's totally functional i think i'm arguing on his behalf and putting him through a surgical procedure that may make him nonfunctional this person how do you take someone who's totally functional and say let do this aggressive procedure and maybe wind up putting him in a spot where he can't come back to work ever and then we're taking him from his full salary to sixty six and two thirds and then you knock off twenty percent of that you were at fifty two percent what are we trying that cured by an aggressive surgery where no one can find anything objective the wrong and how different is this case in terms of facts of you have seen before deciding that you've never seen a case where we're talking about this type of procedure and no one can find anything object really wrong with the person or having this person be able to work for six and a half years having this person be able to work without any