issue about the referrals and i'd like to start with the causation issue the commission majority in its decision placed emphasis on three point one found to be credible to it relied on the medical  direct examination exactly and my point on that is that he offered that testimony is direct examination but the commission completely ignores everything that transpired in the cross examination now normally we have a situation where understanding of this particular background the things that he was told by the were not correct they were inaccurate and when counsel walked through the prior medical with the doctor it referred to the chiropractor d after we look at the examination that with that walk in through all the documents that said the types of problems that you're seen in these records dr ornette are those consistent with the problems he had prior to march twenty second and he says yes they are the same types of problems they're recurring and he also comes back and says when i review this information i see no records of any type of work injury on march twenty second he says these records  related to an event of march twenty second and he's asked a couple times he gets he's hasn't said the answer but he says well clearly there's a discrepancy with this that you have to have the arbitrator in this case clarify these comments were made them or the lack of any reference to work related access so when the doctor was given the full opinion he sees a different different story i think it's interesting when i read the step as if in the first what caught me about this is i could almost s not show a work related accident at most shows a gentleman who bends over and has difficulty getting up and this reminds me of an analogy to a situation where if an individual is at home minding their own business and they do something and they damage a ro so they tear the roof that person goes to work the next day and have to move the fall around in their desk as they reach forward oh my arm how they are related accident or is it a symptom of the fact that they were them selves at home i think it's a symptom of the fact that they symptom that's related to the condition that this person has i think there's a difference it can i go back to the shoulder injury the fact that my shoulder hurts whatever i do and i do something at work it causes it to hurt doesn't mean i hurt myself at work is because it most it's only a symptom that you experience at work just like you would in any other aspect of his life he bends over we know bending over whether he's a work or not is going to cause him to to to have to listen again i make a point know with dr net i mean i think if we had a consistent record of what you told dr annette going back to march twenty second we'd have a different situation then we would come in we say even if he has a preexisting condition if he does those types of things and medical records that come from about a month month and a half after that time we don't have any event at work that he testifies to other than the fact you can dance why does it have to be as you said the specific event or a specific action if he has a pre existing condition part of the fab duties are to do something legitimately is part of the job description and he does it and he's just gets pain why does it not compensable why you have to have a specific traumatic injury early vent we have to have an  but what they're asking us to do is say well we have got all due to testimony coupled with the fact that he testified he bent over to work in and later he tries to add to it i've been overworked looking under my truck and then later he adds to it i've been overworked looking into my truck to take the shell and clean the i mean this is a procession that we're talking about here and if all we're looking at is this is what we're looking at simply bending over we don't have any description in the early time when he talked start talking about bending over to look under the truck what he was doing we don't know what he was or physical problems that was the day he came in and sat then underneath a crane and hurt his back why exactly did he say eighty five he sat i got down off the crane looked underneath the crane and i couldn't get back that that's exactly what he's so we're not talking about a little brain we're talking about a crane that would fill this room and there's no dispute that this crane when it was operated in the winter on mud would get all sorts of model acted under under the rollers and that in order to operate that crane effectively this was part of mr wright's job duties mr wright always said that he was on the plane he got off he was looking under the crane and why else would he be looking i'm going to frame but to make the crane operable for work that's what he was doing that day she testified to that and then mark mathis testified that about a week after the accident to shareholding that he injured his back honor i think that this is not a typical thing he's been a heavy equipment operator for a few this company since the year two thousand yes he had a preexisting back in addition he's been very candid about that but on this day getting down off of need to bring up here except for the fact to show that he said that i didn't insurance i got treatment on my own so he told them what happened he told them about his accident at work and he continued to try to get treatment but guess what this time it was all watts worse and so eventually he called ruth mathis and testified this and said i need to fill out work comp now that happened a little bit later but when did it happen that was a big big contention for responded in their brief he's they say that there is no patient states he was vending over at work to look under a tractor and could not straight not this was the first of march two thousand five hundred two years ago we had some similar back pain which improved with chiropractic care is had some decompression with chiropractor for the past six reached weeks which has not improved since that was before any attorney was involved that was before any referrals were made that was his primary care physician he went and gave the history of the work accident explained exactly how it happened consistent with that are going to said there were two great pregnancy found during surgery that could not have been there for a long period of time because those are the type of fragments that have been well reported on the literature that would dissolve over time and would not remain in its position smaller prescriptions can remain for quite some time but large three fragments generally do not and the fact that the symptoms dramatically improved with the removal of all the of of that all would be consistent with one temporal point in time in which this and so that to dr park on when he saw her before any consultation with an attorney that asked why this happened at work so this is something that he always said happened and how he said it happened now granted i get the clients in my office all the time i fell at work i want to file a claim and the first thing you have to ask them is why did fall how did you fall what happened when you probably what were you doing at that time was there anything on the ground are you carrying anything and that's how you decide when you're going to take the case they say that we all we all ask people for counsel whether it's cars and other physicians our next door neighbor our parents our child why do i do in this situation it was clear it was having significant problems severe pain the doctor was out of town what do i do we found a doctor that was able to treat them he went back to his doctor and asked if he would approve their referral mistreating i said no if you would have said no guess what we can't go see that doctor you're going to have to go where ever you rehearse this doctor said yes maybe a referral you went to  doctor cornet that is within the chain of referral i i said minutes no different than if i said i asked him another doctor friend i asked my neighbor i asked my mother i asked someone else and they said this doctor could treat me and they were good i had my doctor make referrals start asking around legislators decided that that they're going to put some limit on what the employers responsible for and i think we walk into a dangerous area when we start putting plants attorneys make the appointment and then call a doctor in back day a doctor