up to the date of the hearing as well as remaining the matter back to the commission with regard to the home and it's the aspect of the case now your honour's what i believe is very important to note is that mr jones never had any any treatment at all prior to this accident in question and from the outset of his treatment he started receiving treatment the very next day he went to the emergency room and it was documented that he had short penis low back that was radiating into his leg and this was documented throughout the medical records this radiation pain in the constant low back pain now there is just a ton of objective medical evidence as showing an l five s one of them discrimination and he said that that could be related to the work injury he mr jones went to a function capacity evaluation at the employer's  twenty sixth of two thousand and eight and it indicated that he was out functioning at the physical the medium physical demand level which fell below the heavy physical demand love of his job and it also is important that indicated that he gave maximum effort now it seems like things started going on or why on the case at least from our standpoint as of july seventeenth two thousand and eight that was a visit that mr jones had with d we've got snyder and fast as i understand it the claims treating and insulting physicians each determining that the claimants suffered those that were significant nerve damage so can't the commission believe them but the other day you're on i i just client is not the most educated guy in the world when he went so than that i think is important here i he was not the most tactful in addressing the situation when he went back to see dr snyder one of the things i think it was also important is dr snyder went and released him to return to work without even like a doctor's visit in other words she reviewed the m r i on july twenty one of two thousand and eight and then just not released him to return to work on july twenty three two thousand and so my client was  consistent maximum effort there was no one else any were throughout the medical records of any consistent effort or any evidence of some of the magnification and i think it is so important that even be employers i  accident the first time he went for treatment the very next day he had consistent pain in the low back that was noted to be severe and radiating leg pain those symptoms case there with the boards him seeking more medical treatment for a condition yes related to the actually even if it doesn't relieve the symptoms it's something that is a responsibility of the employer under certain that those are even more cloudy issues than this because in those instances the petitioner in question did have a prior problems was in this one mr jones simply but not so for those reasons present any other questions like there's the other issues with regard to the main issue i reduce the temper total disbelief i'm sorry the causal connection issue of it and if you find causal connection those other issues yes i'm sorry i don't have anything else that at this point not against the manifest weight of the average with respect to denial of medical treatment after august seventh two thousand and eight and i have temporary total disability benefits after august seventh two thousand and eight as well as the word for seven percent loss of the person as a whole  i think petitioners counsel at this time is asking the court to enter interpret medical average evidence different than the commission i mean yes there are different medical opinions with regard to the medical evidence we have at this time but as justice is pointed out it is clear here that there's the petition was seen by history oh treating physician dr davis is this family care physician was an indication of it i mean dr adler says on hired gun so to speak i made enough find a herniated disc based on the m r i there was indications that there may have been one but overall when you when you look at the board certified pain management rehab specialist board certified neurosurgeon our doctor even dr dorn who just referenced what the radiologist said they did find they didn't find it was significant when you compared that to his physical exam clinical examination and that's a big thing because these are it just was not adding up this guy's subjective complaints didn't add up and the further throw away and additional evidence towards that we have you know the testimony of his track supervisor john bob and he saw petitions on these days that official went to the e r and said he had these pains in the first state he weighed it you can see i think it was august ninth he went to perry memorial hospital and maybe you win it when you get these these treating physicians who have the opportunity and when i looked at dr philips to philips which we question how we even got over to dr philip located and such at a far distance away  regardless of that back i don't even see a physical examination performed by dr phillips and his records i saw it was based on petitioner subjective complaints and the m r i there was no physical exam performed and physician to about you wait him over and over and over again notice this and i don't think we want to call our own guy i mean they just knew that he had the m r i findings were not as significant as they thought there was no surgical pathology dr faith effort in trying to make sure that he didn't do anything overwhelming to cause him to have any problems i mean the he basically testified that if you sit stand it's needed and this gentleman just didn't want to do it and if you look at his complaints about the records one day he says he can't sit or stand in the next day says well that's the only thing that at least my pain is sitting and standing and walking to the proper i mean the guys i'm over the place as far as the subjective complaints and rightfully examination of the guy that i could tell based on the records if i'm mistaken please correct me i think petitioners reliance on the case law such as perhaps is we misplaced i mean we have in that case i mean there was  some clear problems and i think was dr wiring their library but our doctors did not change their opinion to their treatment plans for before going reasons i  i'll be very brief the functional capacity evaluation is the good standard for determining a person's work restrictions and he did underwent two functional capacity evaluations both of them indicated that he give maximum effort the both of them were below his level of the work that was provided the first one in june two thousand and eight and the key did medium level work restrictions the second one october two thousand  this individual who was there and potentially had a biased opinion who only saw him for a couple brief periods of time it is true that mr jones was in bad shape at the time of the hearing he testified that be traveling to the hearing which was about an hour away increased his symptoms and that's why he was in the manner that he was thank you for your time and i believe that the decision is against