the court error in finding that the lumbar condition was not related to the work accident the previous course also in finding that there was an overpayment of t t t benefits and finally the court erred in finding that there were that the medical benefits back pain was in october of two thousand and eight which was following the more than a year long treatment for her chest condition she had a simple recommendation as of february of two thousand and seven and six months of consultations with specialists before surgery on aug sixteenth two thousand and seven please dr penn penn state your idea and so that's the orthopedic doctor who performed the cervical this got to me and also that is the first time that she discusses the condition factor pennsic that she had been receiving chiropractic care prior to that and also reported pain to her primary care physicians phone and a couple of other things because you can say this is the battle of the experts  and then all of a sudden months later this comes up she she actually testify that she did this the fact is records refute her testimony don't i believe that there is a lack of history in the records  direct and then following the treatment for her chest condition they moved on to the treatment of the cervical spine and dr pennsic testified during his deposition that what they're supposed to cervical injury in a lumbar injury the cervical injury  addressed first to protect the cervical spine while then later treating for the lower to perfect sense that this treatment claimant didn't report any problem at all with the bit which the one for until months later now your argument would be more compelling if in these pain complaints before and the focus although it was not noted in the medical records the focus was first put on the two other conditions prior to treating her for a long march fine so her doctors are knowledge ing that she had made these her prior treatment for back complaints you are so i'd like to move to my second point regarding medical benefits now if you are accept my argument regarding the lumbar condition it would follow that medical as well as dr pepper a big section twelve examiner opined that the several condition was related to the accident of august tenth two thousand and six the treatment for the cervical spine was all administered prior to december fifteenth two thousand and nine which was the m m s and then my date that was determined by the commission however those bills were not awarded my opponent makes an argument that since the bills were not certified they should not have been admitted as argument which we don't know whether that you have recorded except that it was a commission except it rejected it there's no reference as the basis for the name right here it just says they're all paid right and that's not accurate because the bill many of the bills that were submitted as evidence at trial for the cervical care were paid and so that is one of our main points of his death those both should have been ordered to be paid by the way there's really no argument that they should not be paid from a past the lumbar argument and one to the chest condition which is not in dispute at all in this situation dr feinberg who treated her for the chest condition stayed on november twenty ninth two thousand and seven which is on the dictations on page three sixty one of the record she stated that appellant had several questions regarding her future and she noted that she quote made it very clear this is dr fineberg that she will never be able to go back to any type of overhead work she will not be able to lift with her arms extended children limited to lifting ten pounds she cannot live with any type of rotation or twist and dr five or ten continue stating that it was her professional opinion that the patient is a good candidate for retraining she could do computer work or other sedentary work on separate scene two thousand and seven which is on page three sixty of the record dr fineberg repeats the restrictions and states once again quote i did explain to the patient quite firmly that she will not be able to go back to her other type of work and again said the apollo would be a bitch candidate for retraining my point sites to a report from dr patterson on january eleventh two thousand and eight which says that she can return to work dr pettersson goes into no detail regarding that opinion and this opinion was only three weeks after the opinion of dr fine these are both treating physicians and i would argue that it's highly unlikely that one physician would state that she needs to have ten pounds lifting restrictions and is a good candidate for retraining and should do said terry we're just three weeks later another physician would state that she can go back to a whole new job which is lifting up to fifty pounds pelley or appellants i should say was also seen by a vocational counselor on january fourth two thousand and ten who noted that there was an unlikely hood or inability that she would be able to return to work  that transferable skills analysis needed to be performed and that she was even having difficulties to these of daily living this transferable skills analysis and vocational retraining would have been in line with the recommendations of dr feinberg but apollo was never again contacted by the vocational counselor your honour's it's clear from the medical records that the condition of palin's chest has remained the same since the end of two thousand and seven these were appropriate restrictions that were placed on the policy in direct response to questions about her future she has a prosthetic device and had to be seen by half a dozen specialists and chairman what surgery would be best for her chest condition and was not in a position to go back to her fold of the work following that procedure she would be entitled the continuing hate in spanish fits in an argument there were no a finding that those benefits were condition and the fact that she had a good response to the all cervical fusion surgery doesn't change the fact that she had the previous chest surgery before that which limits her ability to go condition was related to the work accident there was no intervening accidents and her doctors have opined that the treatment or the condition was related i would ask that the recommendation for a lot more fusion procedure be  findings of the arbitrator the commission and the district judge it over in fayette county this matter was tried as in one thousand b c in which she was seeking additional treatment for that pullback condition back in november of two thousand which her credibility was an issue and the court correctly found as the trier of fact that her credibility was lacking specifically the arbitrator said and this is in his opinion low back pain and that she supposedly told her medical providers all along is not credible she gets on the witness stand and said i hurt myself i once and i complained of pain to the ambulance people pain no you then i complained of pain to the emergency room you know you did and she admits that when she's handed the records at trial show me where you complained of low back pain to this doctor she says you're right i did that she had some complaints really in october of zero eight when she went to this chiropractor and they did well he does take a history of of her back hurting but he's not really specific about it he throws everything he says she's got an elbow complaint she's got shoulder complaints even complained of even made a citation of her one of her breasts now drooping as a result of the accident but it when she's asked at trial about this and she showed her in terms of the t t c opposing counsel talked about why there's this opinion by dr feinstein and the treating physician for this chest thing back back in november december of two thousand and seven in january of zero eight and dr feinstein was the one who said i'm putting these restrictions on her while those restrictions were placed on her during the course of her treatment for the chest condition the treating physician for the chest dr patterson the releases are in return for to work he doesn't mention any restrictions and that's at page four forty four in the records she then goes to dr pennsic in he releases her in december of for page four forty four the transcript so so then she goes to dr pennsic and he releases there in december of two thousand and nine when the commission said we found her demo my he didn't place any restrictions on her the only thing know about a restriction  december of two thousand and nine when she goes to pennsic is the claimant tells dr pennsic oh by the way don't forget my restriction that i'm under i reminded him again about my restriction he didn't place on her and if it was c says oh yeah let's take a look at that that low back now there is absolutely no credibility to this claimant and i think there is sufficient evidence in the record to say that she was not credible and that her complaints about this white i don't know that i don't know that he explains it that well i will give you that we've all heard about well well i will say that this isn't a scene b if there's a problem with those medical records not being paid they can be addressed in the the other problem we have with these medical records though it's in her testimony when she was on the stand i said when i after a objected to these records having improper foundation and other things were added then i said are all these medical  bills related to your work accent no not all of them so now we have to go through piece by piece and look to see what's for her cold what's for her flu what's for her headaches and see what's related what's not the evidence trying to say all these bills should be awarded is that she admitted in her own testimony you know no not all these bills are related to my access and now the court's going to go through she was asked it page one for seven was a for all these medical conditions related to your back or neck research as no not all and then there is no it's about what has and hasn't been paid in handwriting scribbled on without any foundation as to who put those on yeah yeah so so they're going back to current causation is that the i'm asking this court to affirm the commission so how much is on paper in your estimation there are bills of almost one hundred thousand dollars outstanding for the certain book care how much of it refers to something other than the lumbar spine comparatively very little your honor the bill for the st mary's hospital where she actually had a surgical procedures more than forty five thousand dollars there's a bill from dr pennsic for over twenty two thousand dollars just for the cervical care and a bil related to roughly to the cervical karen of course who wouldn't ask for any treatment for treating a cold but to be paid but throughout this course of time some of the bills that were committed were for primary care physicians who she had seen for other ailments  your back neck and chest the answer no not all of them and the bills didn't differentiate between work related treatment or non work related treatment so i suppose the question is if you don't leave the proper the page numbers of the record it's on page twenty four of my brief and it lists out each of the bills that are unpaid that are related to the cervical condition specifically as well as then the lumbar condition following and if there are bills that are included in those bills that are not related then i would agree that it should be determined by the commission now are some of those bills the uncertified bill no your honor those roll certified overall i'm very proud of under cover of subpoena no explanation and i would therefore argue that dr feinberg who is specifically responding to questions those are permanent restrictions that were placed on the appellant and therefore she would still be entitled to