instance we have a petitioner for an employee he was injured in a car accident on september eleventh two thousand and three there's no dispute that he was in the course of the employment on that day that his truck that he was driving for the employer profound that that truck was neat o and the tow truck that he was connection existed past november thirteenth to the time of hearing and that t d d benefits were in fact our past november thirteenth two thousand and three and i just heard mr turner argue about manifest weight i'm going to make a distinction here in my ar i don't deny the commission the right for there is no review of this case i don't deny them the right to reverse the arbitrator if they want but i do hold an issue with commission reversing an arbitrator on evidence  that's not correct and the commission decision in itself contains numerous factual errors and that's my contention in this case is that it's against the manifest weight because the commission was not technically correct in the evidence that they cited in their decision the tow truck rented a car in front of it and then was ruined by somebody else so if you're going to determine that the accident was significant based on the amount of impact you have to in n y c impact throughout the entire record and not just on the testimony in the petitioner at the time has an accident he testifies to there's there's payment problems supported by some medical opinions and then you would have these other incidents so are you argument clear that these were intervening independent the commissions that this is just kind of an odd out there history that's not really bored by anything and that's incorrect and it continues might be taking issue with mission overturning the decision of the arbitrator in this matter based on incorrect incorrect statements we're going to correct these difference between something being incorrect and the commission choosing between two conflicting versions or two different influences rollover was a significant change in his condition aren't those the kind of things the commission was allowed to decide from the evidence i don't think that's within the purview of the commission to decide that but when they come to that decision i want to accident so how do you respond to probably deserved him and walk there were some incidents clearly however there's no evidence that these were truly intervening incidents as exposed to aggravations of a back condition that i'm aware of the october second now i'm going to end and i apologize i'm not i'm not saying it doesn't exist i don't have the october second now but if those things are true wouldn't it seem really contradictory position that everything that he was back to normal b was terminated because he showed up late every had an epidural injections that's not what the petitioner testified petitioner testified that he was terminated because he overslept and he came in late and then he didn't show up for work and then he was terminated the terminations was evidence and then the next and date of september eleventh two thousand and three with been within seven days of that date on september eighteenth two thousand and three medical records have to be the credibility of medical october fifteenth two thousand and three and up up through the rollover accident there is ongoing complaints as identified page sixteen and seventeen of my brief off off significant ridiculous events of significant ridiculous symptoms and their own doctor their own doctors obvious that when i make an opinion of causal connection i do it what is the incident which is most closely related with the onset of commission found waxing and waning and waxing and waning with it's a it's a medical what we have to do is we have to remind upon the medical evidence we can't say because it got better it got when he had to live a life he had to do things he and indeed dr chang's when he did the incident having sex with his with his girlfriend actually i mean people live lives that they don't when you're injured you just don't now we made the mistake of saying there were no significant ridiculous symptoms before because it was wrong but their work and then when they did the m r i he found that he had there is a need for surgery there is it is and i think all the tre there was a knock there was an october thirteenth daily treatment record which is seasick sixty four oh sure had a horrible weekend the painter parading down the left leg and he wasn't doing much at all and when the the roll