please the court my name is martin feely i am representing talent court motor company in this matter the first begin i believe the court has issued an order for me to respond regarding subject matter jurisdiction i could file a motion in response to supplement the record with copies of my properly filed bond in this matter i hope the court will forgive the oversight on my part but i did have the bob was filed with the bonds filed when we appealed from the commission to the circuit court it just wasn't included in the record and that was my oversight i have a copy of the bond here i've submitted it it was filed as of june and three depending on the evidence we're asking the court to overturn that it was an award of twelve and a half persons twelve and a half percent loss of use person as a whole two hundred twenty one and one summons weeks of t t t a medical bill l five us one hundred it does where the petitioner worked as an employee for ford motor company did in fact report an injury in september of two thousand and two relating back to april two thousand and two had up to  thousand and three she again suffered real injury but now claims cervical spine injuries injuries to her neck which we are contesting first of all that and  contrary to what she was so dating tour own physical therapist jason waters who she reports to on february nineteenth two thousand and three dr smith doesn't come into the picture told two thousand and four in a second report was however if you look at the record specifically she is treating it this time for the lower back she's treating with a physical therapist jason waters he's making daily reports he makes an initial report feb nineteenth two thousand and three visits jason waters through a course of three months or she's going about two to three times a week twenty four times and constantly in his report only point out one reference to scapular pain which first of all lets us know that when he does in fact she's in fact not suffered a sort of clue injury whatsoever which case law actual establishment of even a cervical injury and if the if this court in panel looks at in fact the point in time and the window into her life in february march and april of two thousand and three she's make no complaints whatsoever to a physical therapist  who's treating her was treating her for another part of her spine another part of her back i believe that this evidence is so conclusive and so serious to impeach or that the court can only come to one conclusion and therefore the inference o what they did present that is the type of case they present this is a new type of injury that would be a shock the be a subtle shifting of the burden of proof if they don't present in the first place it's not my job to rebut it as they presented a case basically through her testimony through this record but either on february fourteenth two thousand and three or four percent in two thousand and three she suffered through an x activities on the line at ford neck and lower back and now she has a history of low back injuries she certainly treated for the aggravation however the neck injury but on the basis for which own i'm going to see for five five an arbitrator defense decision underlying was basically based on the claims of neck injury and again first of all we time off until september of two thousand and three and then would continue to be off for another two hundred twenty one months some weeks of time basically her reasoning her own testimony three two thousand and three again february march april two thousand three  findings are in line with in fact treating doctors and physical therapists in this matter and it's my contention i'm not asking for permission are about this panel to substitute their judgment their rulings  for the commission's rulings i'm saying the commissioner's got it wrong and the fact that in light of this evidence and i just pacifically twenty four visits to a physical therapist and mediately after within two days from starting february nineteenth two thousand the brief brief procedural history involved in this case is that there was a decision in favor of the petitioner answered by arbitrator trials of rent on august eighth two thousand and eight then there was a unanimous decision by the workers compensation commission upholding the arbitrator's decision and may twelfth two thousand and nine there was a circuit court decision upholding the workers compensation committee commission and probably twenty fourth two thousand and ten the appellants arguments have been made that they have a tradition level at the commission level at the  court level and all three upon his arguments and evidence to be insufficient the standard of review before us today is the manifest weight of the evidence the test is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the commission's findings that whether this court or any other tribunal decision must be affirmed even if other reasonable conclusions could be drawn i'm aware that it it is it is this court that decides whether or not there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision  that the that the wrong evidence was used as the basis of the commission's decision he argues that there's different evidence should be given more weight this is the rule of the backbiter not a matter of the reviewing court w i'm february eighteenth two thousand and three she complains of pain radiating in her legs and up the spine and offers restrictions you look at there were twenty eight dr ganju pages also he also put it put in a diagnosis appears thesis on the arms which from my limited experience indicates that there's something in the neck affecting the nerves in the arabs further if you go on june nineteenth two the were suggested her by bit by the respondent and when she went to south suburban physical therapy she went there for physical therapy cervical valuation and this is demonstrated on june twentieth two thousand the first one being march in march of two thousand and three and the second one being in february of two thousand and five and they show anything that would support the claim yes they showed positive findings and in fact that are smith in his report indicated that the second m r i the the february fourth two thousand and five m r i showed further narrowing and a progression of her illness  and he notes in the report the development of low back pain and severe pain in the back issues the second report on january thirtieth two thousand and six pages three forty three and three forty four and it's in that report that he no homes this testimony itself is corroborated by ford's medical department's own records and april nineteenth two thousand and two pages three fifty seven three fifty eight there is a reference to lower back strains and restrictions and february thirteenth two thousand and three there is a note that the client of the patient miss holmes is supposed to see dr paine's for an appointment there's a prescription for three in the ford medical department records of pages by fifty four and five fifty five on the record of appeals there's a doctor again jews appointed noted there's a note that there's a prescription for a cervical m i there's a diagnosis of lumbar pain upper extremity or ceases and that she has new complaints about neck you have them in both arms and nearly her whole body and their continued restrictions and certificate she indicates that there is a diagnosis of neck and low back pain so that she has permanent restrictions and that her disability is due to her occupation there's a specific spot where that's asked and  thousand and five and she hadn't worked since september of two thousand and three therefore inherent there's an inherent inconsistency in a failing consistency with dr smith's opinions and his review again there's been little  recounting by counsel by way of treatments or actually anything going on a petition or cervical spine other than her self serving complaints again self serving complaints that your problem is not making to someone who could actually treat or is actually looking at her obese the two to three his life and her claims of neck injury immediately after the accident happened when in fact respondent court is paying for and sending in for treatment for a low back she says no treatment whatsoever no complaints whatsoever to in fact a physical therapist was the one taking the most