this morning or ask him to reverse commission's decision concerning the june one thousand two thousand and eight accident you know many times when we come before this court on a manifest weight case it's exactly as your honor and pointed out it's a matter of looking at two doctors testimony evidence is relatively evenly balanced and one of the parties is saying we think that you should give more significance to miami because he said this versus the treatment position or some type of discussion along those lines when we look at the this particular case we're not saying to this court look at dr martin and look at documents and file and rebalance their opinions we're asking you to take a look at the entire record here and to look at the medical opinions of dr martin dr clark hauser the inconsistency is in the in the petitioners reporting of his injury and his conversation with mr collins and to compare that body of evidence versus documents and felts opinions and we think that know the manner what we're saying is when we look at dr martin dr martin didn't i am example he says we have a preexisting condition here do obese condition it's a degenerative condition of the knee he points out his report all the base he said he has some of the more particular ones are that the petitioner has had the same type of injury to his right knee and that was not work related so we have a natural progression in this gentleman three hundred eighty five on gentleman six foot two i believe of  degenerative pre existing condition with the right in with the left dean we have dr clark's examination which took place in ghana june july of two thousand and eight he read easy m r i he says this is a preexisting inflammatory did when you can when you look at this case and you look at the inconsistency is and how petitioner reported this and what i'd like to do is talk for a second about mr collins conversation mr collins is a is the claim to represent about obama he has a conversation with petition company i understand how this works but you have to have a work accident you just can't have a symptom manifest itself at work a week later we have the june one thousand accidents and we hear the petitioner to report the accident as a twisted  ccident history says i stepped down and i heard a pop but interesting of the pekin hospital records state there was no accident reported on june sixth and it says we're seeing him today for the same problem he had before spring so if there is an aggravation part sane at most it's a sprain there's and this is an underlying degenerate condition if you if you look at the condition of the operation took place where on the right before it was the minister it's the same problem he has in the left and there's evidence that that was a degenerative condition of the degenerate degenerative tear this man has had knees that were bad he was overweight he walked on his knees his knees got worse over time and this record supports that finding when we look at the entire record the entire record paints the picture but he has a preexisting degenerative condition and that is what's required him to have to have this surgery and this being recommended by dr nissen felt not what happened at work whether it even happen to work that's the essence of our argument today it's not just one doctor versus another we believe the weight of this record is so heavy in favor of the conclusion that this was not a work related event  preexisting condition has been recognized for a long time by the workers compensation commission and this court there is no doubt that he had a problem with his the earlier in june just as there is no doubt that he had a more severe problem with his knee on as part of his opinion referenced the lack of any history of accident in the hospital records on june nineteenth and it was there and i think at some stage where it was found dr martin also  to recruit be taken off work not because in his opinion it was a work related injury but because of his problem and up until that time except for maybe a day or so mr record did work  had three separate and distinct decisions but no one appealed the other two decisions i argued that that is the same as relying upon a decision of the commission to support what you guys are going to decide  a case and there are two cases i made note of the names global products and this is for covering that says you do not use commission decisions as a forty for and these are three separate cases tried at the same time if you look at the commission's decisions if you want to but those three will of the two cases be considered they found insufficient evidence that in find any lack of credibility they didn't find anything else they just found insufficient evidence which is true he didn't give very good histories mr collins taught them how to give a good history that he didn't know how to do before that is the difference in my opinion between the two cases than the one they were here on  accurate presentation of what happened in this case we're trying to but i would point out that the arguments that he's saying that that we're making from the other cases were all part of the findings are made by the commission in the history in the state and facts in this particular case which is on appeal before this court so we're not we're not drawing comments from those other cases that you try to summarize his theory is basically this is an aggravation most of all supports that our position is that there wasn't an egg or if there was most it was a sprain then he had a significant underlying degenerative condition and we understand and agree with everything that you've said with respect to cicero and what the law is we agree with that we don't think that in this case on this final record that  nurses i say can you help me walk to my car this a big difference and as a quote pointed out this gentleman drove himself to the hospital so it's i mean i think there was testimony that he would do one of the coworkers who faked his supervisor testif man hurt himself oh yeah absolutely he was just going on truthful well in this is our position is that the two witnesses that testified in support of this gentleman were both close friends and one was a brother in law and our position is that this case after the conversation with m