disability to the whole person and we submit to the court that the evidence is susceptible of only one inference namely that the dry fifty thousand nine hundred ninety seven work accident disabled the petitioner from his interest pre injury trade as a agree resolving at conflict involves an assessment of the testimony and the credibility so how can this be a case where everybody agrees on everything well and the facts there was that there were there was that credibility fine by the dr j for work ironing and a functional capacity of failure ration based on that functional capacity evaluation he was released to return to full duty as a bricklayer full time full duty effective november of two thousand and five he returned to retiring without incident heavy manual labor frequent bedding frequent stooping frequent lifting up to sixty pounds occasionally lifting up to eighty pounds alone up to two hundred pounds fifteenth of ninety seven he has a work injury to roll back i don't think responded to the challenging the accident any more than they did a trial i don't think i'd only get sort of issue any longer but i could certainly go into it if necessary  following an accident he presents to his primary care physician dr simmons or her physician assistant there was some question about which he saw but then back to back to question the original spinal surgeon question in this too conservatively with medication home exercise epidural steroid injection and recommends a job change he never before recommending jet change refrozen back to dr j again the doctor who saw him for the note to the court it's not very often that we see cases where we've got a before and after functional capacity valuation performed by the same medical provider so it so really is a really unique and compelling set of facts so all of this is on the bottle it's a chain of events as as the case law states involving a condition of good health an accident and a subsequent disabling condition of ill being or the condition of good health return to good health it was fine so worth the aggravation well let's put it this way your honor there was a back injury superimposed on preexisting operated back whether or not you know it's a it's a fresh pathology confusion you're pointing out the nineteen ninety five surgery involved a herniation on the right side of the spine correct correct after one thousand nine hundred seventy was an injury involving his let's say that is correct so where's the aggravation of what condition well there was to the shirt so throw it out and let's look at the on the sputum facts and whether the whether the record looking at the record without his opinion testimony if it's not going to be found credible and let's look at whether of whether based on the out record of the commission had any basis to reverse the wage differential the second basis that they cite is what was cited was the surveillance video i would encourage the court if if you haven't done it to look at the surveillance video it shows him doing his new job as a maintenance worker for the village of union grove wisconsin which is perfectly capable of performing and he'd be the first to admit he did admit it but there's nothing in the video that indicates he's able to return to work as a bricklayer i went through the job duties i want to the second time but the repetitive bending and stooping is primarily what he is currently on able to do as well as the heaviest lifting so in summary why is it a conclusion opposite to that to which the commission came to clearly very good at the chase because we have a petitioner who completely recovered from a one nine hundred ninety five back injury had a functional comparison with a functional capacity bit evaluation that released into heavy manual labor which he did without incident for two years sustaining what amounts to an honorable idea in theory to involving the low back his original spinal surgeon who was not found less than credible by the way arbitrator in the commission didn't say anything about dr cushman speech credibility and cushman recommended a job change after the ninety seven work accident then a repeat functional capacity evaluation which also found him now disabled  and says nothing about the functional capacity valuation that would show that it's causally related to some of the surgery he's got left side symptoms now instead of right side symptoms as he did in the old pathology uncross intimidation so sure he testified with the levin testified that oh in my opinion the current condition is related to the old one nine hundred ninety five surgery that took place on the opposite side what's his basis for that there's no credible basis for that opinion just like in the gross case where the examining doctor had really no credible basis for his opinion that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was really the smoking r another part everyone seem to think well if the commission found it to be less than credible at one point they have to check the entire test that's not the law here were i'm aware that your honor i guess who in response i would say i'm sorry little prodding but thank you i appreciate that the commission determines the way to credibility of the evidence and in this case the commission determined the petitioners medical evidence was not credible in this case there is no opposite conclusion that could have been made based on this evidence and this commission's decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence in support of his argument the petitioner basically asserts that so long as he alleges the wage differential and is earning less money at the time of trial he should be entitled to get it petitioner argues that the commission with is without discretion to wage just differential merely because he has elected it petitioners argument eliminates the commission's power to review the evidence to novo and ignores his burden of proof in presenting credible medical evidence the truth of the matter is the petitioners own doctor falsely represented the medical evidence to justify his hasty imposition of a permanent restriction the commission did not believe dr j they found him incredible and basically he said well my records were wrong my records included a typographical error and the radiologist who read the one thousand nine hundred seven m r i is wrong too so basically we now have dr dre the question complete conflict with his the prior doctors and this was about eight years after after his records were completed it is within the commission's province to disregard evidence they find not credible and once they disregard the opinions any alleged permanent restriction falling therefrom was nine hundred credible either the commission was differential in this case the commission's decision is supported by the manifest would be evidence and they have the power to completely disregard all the evidence petitioner had a pain complaint on july fifteenth of ninety seven he had physical therapy he had  credibility and opine that his actions on the surveillance tapes defied a person in distress at all the commission is within their province to weigh this evidence and draw their reasonable conclusions and inferences there is nothing the iranians in their opinion in reviewing the evidence or reject reasonable inferences drawn from it by the commission even if other inferences could be drawn in the commission's assessment of credibility and the testimony of the plant the petitioner is within their province they properly scrutinize all the evidence in this case and their unanimous decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence i ask that you affirm the commission very briefly we do not suggest that a wage differential award is in any sense automatic we understand our burden of proof or burden of proof is to demonstrate that the injury  caused an inability to return to work at his pre injury trade which it did and a loss of earning capacity which we believe was also proved through naturist his his payroll in the union  terms of that project practice i think it has to be recognized that it wasn't just a one shot exam because this is a doctor knew the patient both before and after the injury and again how often do we see that certainly i don't expect the court to reverse the commission finding and witness credibility i would suggest that but i would suggest if the commission is going to make of a credibility finding they have to look at the basis for the opinion of the doctor that who they're saying is credible and look at what he said on cross and whether it contradicted his opinion on direct examination  i also believed that the commission failed to address the chain of events theory of causal connection recognized that it merely gives rise to an inference they don't have to accept it i think they do have to address it especially when the facts as they are in this case standard is not a rubber stamp i think we still history review what the commission did in the term and whether it supported sufficiently by the record and with that i would ask that the court muster for the questions reverse