august twenty seventh twenty thirteen he then began to complain of low back pain based on this complaint of low back pain dr nudie gave the opinion that mr wilson should seek treatment from  defendants then rush to set up an independent medical examination with a doctor claiming this appointment was made prior to any attempt or any potential opportunity for my client my client to seek that proper treatment with the spinal specialist those specific lead discussed in section eight of work of the worker's compensation act which calls for the injured worker to be able to receive all reasonable and necessary medical treatment upon this examination by dr layman which cut off which cut off all sort of opportunity for treatment by clarifying that all pain issues were not related to the accident  immediately felt right even he then went to report this pain to his employer as required when he reported it to his employer the phrasing that is indicated in the form is that he stepped off the fourth now there is a for now there are no words are different your honor and i will not dispute that the words are different however the client's report has been consistent and that he was injured in exiting the foreplay which was thirty inches off the ground our client the decision the arbitrator were those were those many years you were i believe he did have a knee replacement your owner's however it's undisputed that prior to this accident on august thirteenth point thirteen he opportunity to see a spinal specialist on one time the problem with those in our eyes is not that they were identical it said they would be hard to read dr burnett indicated that the claimants fusion that he underwent involves study plates these are metal vision and the particular m r i well this is he i think i back around and he basically said i cannot see properly what is going however it has been my experience and with regard to medical science that back injury stand developed over time it's been your experience that i missed i miss medical doctors including dr burnett have given the opinion that the back injuries can develop over time that an injury can occur on one day and subsequent back pain and injuries to felt and first report after that date can be related to that accident now dr burnett is the only spinal specialist here dr layman who is the essentially the starwood star witness and the medical documents for the respondent is not a sign of specialist he is in fact need appeared the reason i know he's not a spinal specialist is has he explicitly admitted so in his deposition he further admitted that he refers all back injuries  he then went on to say more whole opinions related to these civic back injuries that were outside of his expertise and then went on to give opinions related to the medical degree of certainty for which job estimators do their job he gave opinions that i do not believe he was qualified to give not only that his credibility is greatly affected by the findings under which we discovered only by happenstance in the center of twenty fourteen when this case was pending before the commission those findings which i believe are very relevant to dr rot layman's credibility included that he admitted that ten months prior to this examination he did not perform a physical examination on claimant and the exact same situation were found sation injury he indicated that he gave extensive physical examinations however he then this is this is some reviewed x rays and then basically listened to them explain the incident and issue has come up before the committee the commission's decision was dated december twelfth when a fourteen year old we discovered this fact on december tenth twenty fourteen motion prior to issuing its decision what does one do you know the letter was related to supplementing the record for respondent fraud we took the position fraud i want to bring it to the court's attention because i don't want to be involved in anything related to fraud the defendant's counsel to be took a bigger position he took the position that he knew  would not disclose to us and that despite knowing of this fraud continue to rely on dr layman's position on this fraud this dr lehman admitted to committed perjury on september twenty five twenty fourteen an agreed upon your honor we've heard the roar appealing that decision by the commission and i believe that is very relevant that fraud has been committed here i  would need to review the record but i believe it is there in there somewhere i know it was attached to documents it's in our brief we did it as an attachment we basically specialist until he gets to see dr who are not this back pain still exist dr barnett the only spinal specialist in this case the only person who is expressly dealing with spinal injuries on a regular basis reports that he believes the injury is causally related to the accident he got his causation opinion you got me you're representing the claimant testifying consistently over the back of his and the nature of or isn't a dispute with is the commission's characterization as the house accident occurred the commission adopted the accident of him stepping off of the fork laugh this would be consistent with the accident history that he provided to his employer an accident report form and his recorded statement to the insurance company and then his first treatment on the day of the accident when he saw the doctor but newt petitioner subsequently gave two different accident histories where he told dr katie they hopped off the f introduced at trial supports the commission's decision that the lumbar complaints are not related to the accident during the first treatment on august thirteenth two thousand and thirteen the day of the accident he did not describe any lumbar pain complaints in his recorded statement he was her anywhere else besides is neat but what she responded that he did not while he admitted that he had back surgery approximately twenty five years prior to his accident but he stated that he never had back pain during the two thousand and seven two thousand and eight back pain was significant enough that in two thousand and eight he had a lumbar m r i and two thousand and thirteen after this accident he has another longer i'm right in the radiologist compare this one to the discussion about the third issue raised by petitioner and what he raised as a first issue in front of you today is that we did this perform this i need to quickly we would just like to remind the court that on september seventeenth dr medupi question significant secondary issues of pain is the treating physician has a long he's has a history of treating petitioner before this accident and that are i me was scheduled and performed a month after dr bernadine had raised this opinion this secondary going to after the fact that the commission had more than rely on i do believe it's disturbing and i would like to make sure to point out a number of false or completely unfounded allegations made by mr dr layman is not a self admitted perjurer there is nowhere in the record is that dr layman has never been found to have committed fraud in an unrelated case he has never admitted that he lied on an examination to the missouri report of healing arts dr commission in the first place so there was a proper motion if this court deems that there was a proper motion in front of the commission the commission to properly deny the motion to supplement the record as there is no case law to support petitioners motion  rules of how is it that one either side can go about showing this fraud it is an interesting issue i have seen her cases but there is no hearing her say that should this quarter find a history of stiction on this appeal responded respectfully request this commission decision be affirmed in its atari the commission more than sufficient facts to base to make the determination it dead based on the mechanism of injury initial complaisant petition or the lumbar reprimand by the missouri state board of dealing arts that reprimand was issued by in agreements with dr lehman on september twenty five twenty fourteen and that reprimand here greed that he did not perform basically  with regard to whether it should have been received by the commission the motion to supplement was sent on december tenth two thousand and fourteen my secretary sent to be a regular us mail which i would before and if you know what you are defense counsel reference to sections section twenty five point five specifically a two which makes it illegal for either the p cemented my secretary did not send it and it was obviously a crucial error because if we had that if we could be able to show that was submitted other than through our business record with regard to the injuries your honour's the lumbar spine was normal and had no sort of limitations just discussed in the august thirteenth twenty seventeen visit by august twenty seventh in th that he was discussing but it was not related to causation he did not say this is specifically due to the degenerative nature of the issue you did not say these new symptoms and this new symptomology which was not present when i was thirteen but did become present on august twenty seventh twenty thirteen did not relate to the entry he did not give any sort of statement with regard to that the only doctors you give any sort of opinion on as to causation for the back injury dr richard laymon independent medical examiner and dr matthew or ned his final specialist i believe that there are a number of problems with dr layman's opinion that if greatly affect his credibility now the arbitrator commission after the arbitrator to the accident he does discuss the m r i eyes that were performed two thousand and eight and two thousand and thirteen there is no dispute that dr for new indicated that they were similar and dr lehman indicated they were similar dr barnett and that there were similarities but that he could not distinguish what was missing be exact exactly going on the all five s one area which is a particularly affected area because of the staff you place which included his  ability to do so our client unable to see the proper treatment we would not be here however there is no debate they were going to the section twelve argument there is no specific