morning honors my name is michael casey the credible evidence of record even says that the petitioner had fully recovered from her original surgery in this case there is no evidence in this record that petitioner had fully recovered from her original accident after that first surgery she continued under the care of dr mess who allowed her to return to work with restrictions later reduced to thirty pounds restriction and continued to order physical therapy and more aggressive work conditioning before the i demonstrated that there was a need to go on for a second surgery it just simply does not true there is no evidence in this record that she had fully recovered from the her original the commission said that defeats causation and i say well that to me sounds like they're saying it's an independent intervening accident after the first surgery grief on august fifth two thousand and two she reported to dr mass that her pre surgical pain had resolve june early june surgery extremities of motion when she would get to the end point of her stretches by november two thousand and two she was demonstrating an excellent range of motion lacking only a couple of degrees of extent external rotation and three or four caressing her degree levels with the child rotation cleared for a restricted duty a week later she returned to director best requesting it up tending a modification her work restrictions lowering her lifting tolerances the next day she transitioned from physical therapy to work based upon this record but with with then there is no basis for anybody to say anything different or to to come to the conclusion that the commission came through here so what does th the decision of the commission is against the manifest weight of this record we have additional in the the opinion of dr nicholson that this lady had stiffness and that are that stiffness played a role in the failure of the surgery or well it played a role we see in the failure of the second surgery it played a role in the failure of no third surgery and decision of the commission and arbitrator and and remain on the case for appropriate decision there with regard to the issue of the other issues in the case they were due to the side on the basis of causal connection both medical and the please the court i'm bill laurie on behalf of the defendants a litigant this case on behalf of the university of illinois ospital a fine is against the manifest weight of the evidence only wi no trier of fact could have agreed with the commission's findings that standard guides us through this call the relationship issue presented in this case it guides a school with consideration of causalities given the petitioners apologise in this case now another word spoken this morning by mr casey who's a fine attorney all to the fact that the commission's decision was by no means i can stand here and tell you because of the channel and the commission didn't tell you we're trying to take the cost of the of the new pathology that is the birth of maybe big and that's a burden that the commission determined she failed to sustain it light of the opinion of goldberg he's constantly referring to golders backing up this because if it isn't when you look closely at the testimony of dr goldberg you see a couple of things first of all he got on the scene in zero three after the initial not say a change broken they're not saying this is a model of the spill caused it they're simply saying this person did not prove that the subsequent diagonals tears all three of them which are absolutely different from the initial that there had been a resolution of her original post allergy which led to the first surgery is the opinion of her own doctor missed who responded to exhibit one notes