surgery of the former performed in two thousand and eleven and really this case is kind of interesting because it to us there's two different phases of this case there's the phase one which cases from september ten up until december when dr born yet rendered his office no opinion with respect to the causation as to the symptoms he was experiencing and phase two would be from that date forward to the up to the date of the surgery and i think point and then in october he had an m r i film m r study and the interesting part about that is that it didn't show any stenosis and it didn't show any  he'd seen before for prior back problems in december she presents a series of complaints to him and he says the time that the symptoms i do believe are current symptoms are causally connected to her work related intrusive temper twenty seven twenty ten now you price saying ok so why isn't that the end of this fashion the reason that's not the end of the discussion is because we've got six months roughly later and a second c t with contrast it was performed in spring surgery prior to the the films that show this stenosis and prior to obviously the operative report which case stenosis so opinion that dr borne it rendered in this case was based on what he saw at that time in december which i don't think the record fully develops the nature of the of the symptoms she was complaining about i was looking at i think it's the actual report you're talking about from that a full time frame where she was complaining to the doctor there's no real  complaining about at that time i think the problem here is that the opinion that dr gordon it gave was based on an m r i that was done in the fall and the condition changed sometime in that march april timeframe but based on the see didn't actually doctor and offer a letter offer an opinion in some type of entry or a deposition that said the surgery the condition that was on the films in the spring is related to the accident yes you make comments with respect to december but then strange because had they not had that you could perhaps make an infirmity while he was seen in december here's a doctor's opinions and all we have is a continuation of the prior condition but we've got a film that documents the definitive change and we've got a surgical report that addresses what appear on the films showing the change and that's why we're saying it was incumbent upon them to present a medical opinion to say yes those things that appeared in the spring on the films in the spring are also was related to the accident basically an opinion part two he's already got to december he's talked about the condition the symptoms he saw at the time but where is the opinion that says that the changes that appeared in the spring and recorded in those films are related to the surgery and they don't and the only wasn't present before the doctor venders opinion and it is present afterwards and that's what the surgery was for and that's what we said they needed the doctors in because had they not had that of the films in the spring they would have a much better argument i would agree with what you're saying they would have a much more significant argument that it was just a continuation and we wouldn't have any films to refute that but we do have films here that refute that and say we've got spin that wasn't there before it wasn't there before so if it's not there before where's the doctor's opinion to come in and say you know what that's included too and to offer that explanation how can the commission fill in that hole when we're talking about films that are different this is a classic situation that we always pray for before and after films we some argument we've got before and after films that match up with a surgical report that relates to the second set of films that are after the original doctor's opinion and our opinion says not mine our doctors opinion says it not really so what we're saying here is that it was incumbent upon them to offer that many opinion now the ancillary of that is could they rely on a chain of events i don't think you can in this case you can rely on a chain of events only to the extent that you could look at her condition she had preexisting problems certainly there d prior to september and if you want to realign and pinion with you throughout whatever the doctor said in december and say to chain of events establish a causal connection with relation to what happened in december up until the films and up until december the september  you take that chain of events which requires a pre supposition of a petitioner who is in a good state of health when she's clearly not based upon the strain that was diagnosed by three doctors in the films in the fall and the doctor's report from december he's certainly not in  had surgery in two thousand and three a bill or five i believe and it was done by god it was done by dr gordon at who returns to her regular duties who does all of her regular duties is able to continue working until this accident in two thousand and ten now let's go chronologically before she even saw the doctor when it she had been through some conservative treatment that failed she finally gets the doctor going it he suspects based on an m r i that had already been done this l two three an l three  gram confirms that in the meantime she said injections she's failed that she has the conservative treatment fail there is no difference in her symptoms although  rephrase that no difference in the patient or sometimes there's worse than upper symptoms the employer approves the surgery the employer approves t t d he can though that's not admission i understand that that's not what i'm going with they approved all of this and then later on they get a monday morning quarterback that comes in and says oh by the way this was just a free system condition and it's the surgery was for a degenerative condition and not a not something related to this the necessary finding for him to have found that it would be a strain even cause this to become more symptomatic was present in the have my recollection of them are same thing and then it's the same day performed at this program which he said confirm i mean so we went back to the you know the question i had earlier i mean why can't the commission look at this is very different than a terror and that there was a new thing and that's why i say something changed in the spring and the opinions that were given in december do not address those changes and when the surgery if if the surgery is tied up  doesn't match the burden of proof well no doubt if the commission would have said we agree with the idea of me and we were up here to still be a problem on the standard view if they believed him over the over going medical records to show whether he sprang from the medical records in the spring or not very clear i don't think they really offer us a good insight but what we have to look and give significance to what those rank films shelf and they show a change in our circumstances to