described in there are different than the symptoms that mr houston demonstrated after the march fifteenth over five accident in particular and what's important to note in the december zero four record is that the doctor  no weakness numbness repairs these of the lower extremities so that's a back question he did not have the same symptoms before that and therefore the medical records themselves demonstrate change there and if you look at the emergency room re the sixteenth which is two o'clock in the morning following the end of the shift on march the fifteenth you will see specifically in there the e r doctor notes if there were those symptoms present that you did have likely to see did have numbness in his leg that dr park agreed with that the i don't think he changed his opinion with regard to the causation of houston's condition being related to the march fift being reported to him in the questions sounded similar to what he saw before but i think if you're if if you're going to evaluate dr parks opinion in this case you have to take i think you have to take it in the of fact that he's a treating physician in this case and you have to read the entire record of treatment leading up to this dr park was aware that this injured worker had prior symptoms but he was also aware of the of the biting your treatment leading up to this individual being referred to him for further care and he was aware that the person following the march fifteenth accident had had courses physical therapy  do is if you read the medical records before the accident and after the accident that are in this record you're going to see a marked difference in diagnoses and conditions and treatment and that's the point the point is this that's a good question his preexisting problems only could create a problem in this case because they're used as a basis to deny the claim and the preexisting condition that he had was back to the subsequent conditions that he that right i stand corrected he had some pain that was that they same day is that report that was issued by dr reading the same day earlier that day this man had been in the emergency room or there were injuries and he reported to the emergency room saying they're current more frequently and if that's the case with your strongest argument that there's an intervention here the incident in march now the speed with which these symptoms  relating to that accident and i believe that the medical evidence supports the proposition that this aggravated the preexisting condition of low back pain and also that it created another condition a record from december of zero four saying this person back and even though it doesn't demonstrate your logic symptoms but it's not important to him in his opinion that the person reports to the emergency room and hours of the accident seen and he said he didn't say that he didn't have an incident or but he says it doesn't sound like a significant injury or merely an exacerbation of longstanding conditions now the problem with that is invasion it's compensable and therefore i think you should carefully review what he said in this particular case and consider the fact that the doctor should pose that the foundation of this opinion finding they did not suffer any injury that arose out of in the courses and one another day has a bad day and this was no different and that's what stopped you should post point was and to get back to this argument about whether or not we have different symptoms after this event i point you know i just pulled  i was listening to the argument this report from dr reed grieving for march sixteenth two thousand and five specifically states he has no numbers of the war exterminate he's comma no we something about where you're on here there was yes and that's something that also dr parker and i believed optional or are in agreement on and that is you can't pinpoint when a terror curse particularly when you don't they're in agreement on that if that's my understanding of reading both purpose and i believe in and i'm doing this from memory now but i believe the first time that there was any mention him and terror related but they want to cross examine him and said no wait a second what about this part of medical records we has i believe the words were similar substantially similar complaints as what dr parks words were the complaisant given  well first of all i read that report this morning in the hand reception there's nothing about numbness or weakness nothing but there's a chapter list and at the bottom of this checklist in the middle of the page it says numbness weakness a radiologist report is nothing more than hearsay if he doesn't look at the film himself then i don't see how you would be able to offer an opinion on what the film shows he simply reiterating with someone else says doesn't really add anything to his opinion and the fact that he didn't look at the films means that he can't say what were on the films that the fact that he takes it history from the patient  and the patient tells who would have symptoms were after the accident and does not look at the emergency room record to see what the physician noted down at the time the man hours after the accident that's why it's on our record report itself they have sections in there to indicate the types of symptoms and what the doctor's findings are the doctor noted he had a leg numbness and weakness hours after this ve we prove that what happened was he had preexisting problems that were made worse by this accident and we have solid evidence that he suffered a torn or five this and that's why he needed more treatment as career your correct i'm as we say i i i i i can't explain their decision i don't attempt to explain their decision i think that the burden that i support that decision and the problem is there is not factual evidence in this record to support the decision that this was not an aggravating injury to this man there is not factual evidence in this record t