fishery had no pain before this accident then there's a claim that accident and then there was pain and injury afterwards he says that that has no bearing on his determination of whether or not there was uninjured how is it finally my standard you understand what frightens fry appliance when there's some type of b now the medical or scientific principle involved in the opinion while his opinion had nothing to do with any medical or scientific principle claiming that his opinion was premised upon some new or novel scientific principle or test yes and then what would that be that chronology has no effect on causality we have seventy years of supreme court instruction in the case  plato foundry back in one nine hundred thirty four westinghouse in seventy nine international international harvester in eighty two in all those cases show recognize rule that when you have an injury injury is a separate issue and the knee injury he said was not related however that in this based on facts that simply did not exist and so there was a faulty opinion not because the methodology but because of the facts that were back injury was warranted i mean i can get to that a bit but whether or not the finding that the knee was not related was against the manifest whether the evidence was another lawyer and it didn't the claimant clearly have knowledge that he was walking at home when he felt like his knee exploded yes he walking at home correct correct so how does that relate back to his work because november eighth two thousand and four is the day to the original accident this step that we talked about at home was december third he does report need pain continuously from the time of the accident until that time we took a step at home i thought of an analogy that if you run over a curb with your car and you break the oil and it's going to take a few miles before the engine size to seize up when you step on the gas so there isn't  speculating that there's preexisting arthritis preexisting conditions when the facts are clear that the petitioner lifted between five hundred fifty pounds every day for the last five years he played on american airlines hockey teams that basketball teams he coached newman and then also dr can i am major opinions that was well there's three opinions over the course of this proceeding conservative care was still what was being recommended by all the factors so when american airlines relied on those opinions later on those opinions were already stale they were out there and so yes they both said that it was really a back injury was related to the accident but they said that no surgeries warranted at that time and at that time there was an opinion that maybe was reasonable for american airlines to follow but it's just see as the months went on during that summer of zero five conservative care failed he had a number of epidural steroid injections and after that it was prescribed for him to have spinal fusion dr walsh  that that surgery was necessary but of course he said that the accident was the injury was and i'm sure there was on the sensible conflicting medical opinions were correct so on the last subtle legal doctrine that it's within the province of the commission to assess the second time based on fact there was a penny and that's one of the procedural issues that i'm talking about is that they struck that decision with only one commission i think the rules are clear that there needs to be a worm but three commissioners and wasn't even in the face of the medical community to support the denial of liability when they clearly have some knowledge of medical evidence to support their position the medical evidence though is not based on correct facts as we said we have elements of his leg and for the we have all the evidence of him being healthy before it all the doctors say treating doctors say that there is no way that you can have a career like that without some sort of traumatic injury a all the evidence undisputed shows he had no problems before it was also a finding of fact by the commission how could they reasonably rely on a finding by dr walsh it says he has preexisting arthritis when there's no evidence of arthritis they should have known that they had all the records they had  surgical reports they're not going to rely on their doctor's opinion the problem is any time now they can come up with a doctor's opinion that says the title lives from the moon or black magic is the cause of there being no connection or no understood or accepted scientific methodology of causation and so that what that is the implications of that is they can come up with any opinion as long as it has an empty stamp on the end of it and whether or not it's based in reason or fact or scientific principle they can reasonably rely on that to withhold benefits and you know what we see here is the practical implementation of this is you have respondents and employers squeezing these petitioners to either come back to work before they're ready or to have the treatment paid for by somebody else and as long as they can hold out on these petitioners for no reason at all whole purpose we know that the x purpose is remedial carefully injured work and that's completely you cannot ignore that evidence that the factors aborted injuries undisputed nobody disputes that he had this injury when he's trying to separate these hitch that he had to get in a position to lift a lot of weight there's no dispute that this incident happened you can't just ignore the fact that he had no problems before that generated otherwise you're just cherry picking the evidence and coming up with an opinion that's not based on  acknowledged that there were some back pay however american airlines relied on noncompliance at this april fourteenth by a me as the reason for terminating t v well they terminated t t d a few months earlier they serve no basically saying that this activity in my experience does not cause an aggravation of a degenerative condition in the right has nothing to do with the absolute i think the you know in this case he keeps pointing back to the chronology equals the connection and states to it was record ninety three and ninety four reason why they didn't pay him to t v during this time he was also off workers back i think the case was clear that even if you're also off work for argue endo a non related knee injury and even though it was related if you're off work was ordered paid and that there was no they really had no valid reason for saying that the back injury was not related arbitrator awarded that there were few and no merit and so penalty should have been awarded but they were not thank you thank you for