it by the workplace or incident that required medical treatment which should have been found to be compensable and it was not now our problem which we  briefs is that the opinion on which the commission relies on this particular matter is faulty with regard to both the law and the facts from the a factual point of view the doctor prior to the accident son dr stopes and his own stokes told him he needed a slip replace clearly that was in need of would be placement apparently before the incident in question no question so how do you job site by the ambulance there are reports made by the fire department the police department this is not the kind of thing that is in concert but this is not the kind of thing that is not going to cause a problem to with the individual who has arthritis all exactly right and i find nelson to be incredible because that's not in the record he keel has been treated by a bevy of high powered board certified orthopedic that the claimant went to see him months before he told me to hip replacements the claimant to me is you indicate the only impediment so to speak clearly was the way he was one hundred pounds overweight all right i can understand your  that an individual any of us at least certainly include myself in this category of being a senior citizen carry around some prudes esteem condition or other so i and many others have a cause for further medical treatment but if something happens to me that excel awaits my need for that treatment that is because it's quite cerebral i must admit it first i was uncomfortable with us the more i think about it your honor the more i think this is the case of the twenty that i think that that's an accurate statement your honor but i also think this would be an accurate statement as well if it's not quote that story but not quite dead up metaphysical if we look at it from this perspective what stokes is saying impression when we look at what is required to have a legal basis for your tossing here i like to deal with a very simple you're talking about you have no else and he's talking about a man a natural progression  state we find him after the incident right we have dr stokes who says no natural state he might be in this eight months from now exactly but in my opinion there's an exasperat and so why am i standing here arguing that you should pick stokes over nelson the reason is because nelson doesn't have a legal basis and we're always here for his opinion because if he'd opines and as we go into the future and this becomes more and more of an issue with people with preexisting conditions who have something happen in the business need to do sion is a dance don't we need a time lying to the side wh my name is rich masters somebody half of the respondents issue before the court today of course is properly identified as whether the commission decision that mr key hose did not worsen his hip was against the manifest report of the evidence and we submit to the court that the answer to that question is clearly no at most mr keyhole has shown some conflicts in the evidence to support his claim but that is not enough to warrant a decision by this court that the opposite conclusion of that reached by the commission is clearly required it's well established of it's up to the commission to decide how much weight to give each piece of evidence and it's particularly up to the commission to weigh competing medical testimony now i'd like  two responses your honor first of all that is not an argument that was presented to the commission so the argument is way secondly even if it is not waived it's not supported by the evidence in this record what happens when mr keyhole goes back to mr surgery it's absolutely the case and certainly the commission was well within its its balance of weighing evidence and making determinations about how much to give each piece great to give each piece of evidence that the commission concluded needed hip replacement before he needs it after and that nothing about this accident accelerated in the first that wasn't the argument made below anyway but and repeated even which i do believe was an argument made this turkey has had condition and there was ample other evidence to support that conclusion in fact there was ample evidence that mr tito went when he did not tell with any of the first responders that he hurt his hip cannot find any other specific acute injury except to say that he is exasperated the underlying thought now is that that's an opinion about the underlying pathology and about that aspiration right it is  that this far made my hip hit her worse but when we look at it my commission points this out when we broke at the reports to the first responders when we look at the e r records when we look at the records from all of his other absolutely wasn't true he had already been told he needed a hip replacement surgery and eight months prior to the fall had complained to dr stokes of six months of worsening hip pain so my point to this part is that the findings any finding of the medical treatments that his hip pain is worse is all based upon him saying it's worse and the actual backwards from the accident showed that that was was not the case  brief where mr keogh also began his testimony before the hearing officer by saying my gift was fine before the accident and i had no pain before the accident again that statement was contradicted by the medical records from any months prior please the court counsel in her argument the made a comment that i thought it's just so important that quick to exercise after it did she revealed she not argue that in a list of three or four different things that she picked off the emergency room repor or that kill needed the hip surgery immediately after the fall down the stairs again i would just invite the panel to take a look at the record evidence and see if there isn't a big difference between the four