ended a final decision it was an appeal taken by the responded in this case and it's a final decision of a commission award where she reversed wouldn't have been rem findings which would then probably prompt and no other appeal to the commission's entry of orders in conformance with judge we findings on less we were able in i don't know sometimes we don't have the opportunity to review the matter in front of the commission but it is their discretion to allow us to do them and if they didn't and they entered her findings we would be back here again i respect what you're saying that it would be a big curiously your otherwise you're going very well founded decision against going taking the judge we can this decision put to this aside for the moment but what we have here we have a commission that did address very very carefully the tube videos that were presented but if i can back up a little bit on this is a case before we get to the video that has really to be accidents we're not here arguing whether or not there was an accident place no one has suggested that by britney or did not have two reasons i won't even try to speculate what put my own spin on that video because i think that's an even inappropriate we call have a different opinion after watching the video suggests that we look at how the commission viewed that video to look at all the factors and i would suggest if a circuit court at any point in time gives on a review heightened way to any piece of evidence whatever that evidence might be that does not go with the manifest weight i will suggest that if there are questions of law and your honor heard yesterday something about i wish differential that is the circuit court i would agree that if there are times when the circuit court does more good to know review what is the manifestation date in a more of a statute of limitations but not in this type of a case and when that video is viewed when you hear additional testimony about that video mislead mislead or doesn't say that's not her in the video or anything like that she had knowledge as i was in that video she testifies at trial i was in pain and on pain medication there's testimony that shortly before that she had had three  much is made of her appearance in that video so rather than just having this real testify at trial the neighbor is brought into trial and the neighbor testifies the neighbor so thirty year nurse and she explains what she saw about miss leo's so she offers something more than just having a petition or a trial and again that's what the commission has in front of they don't have that but they have some explanation about the video itself no much is going to be made much is made over all of the doctors three doctors who viewed the video and that to me after dropping the petitioner after he sees the video and i think the commission truly respected and looked at it each that there's going to be given its own way on this court has said that section twelve of treating dr nor that one should be given the heightened weight so we have for doctors the first thing i will suggest it doesn't matter if you have three out of four or five by the six nine other ten i'm just adding numbers is not how any commission should be looking at the facts before them they're going to look at each doctor each piece of evidence and that's what this commission does in this case and this commission points out facts such as document for strangely when he writes a report in january of two thousand and six before his july deposition starts out with the premise that no one will find in this record whatsoever they missed by biblio must have had back pain prior to the september twenty four x nowhere and there are as the record is i'm looking at and he also clearly clearly acknowledges that if someone has a preexisting spinal life he says and it's me it can be made symptomatic by accidents and then she would have had the  d issue it finds her a permanent total based on not a big issue but there is one very well respected rehabilitation person this engine burp constant to play does find that there is no  this order be the circuit court or what did she reverse everything causation to i think so so in other words in other words a circuit court reversed the entire commission cision disregard arbitrator's decision even said this woman is not taking any benefits whatsoever that's how you interpret this order and that was what i understood from her no she didn't say a word about machine said thing i've got a transcript you can see she said i did i feel it to the circuit court you know yes all right and what what was your appeal but it's not causation yes so this is an outright total reversal of the commission even to judge i mean i asked for first of all i can't speak for judge wheaton i don't know what she said except for what she said in the transcript and i personally argued that this was a back strange case that she had the accident we didn't dispute that there was an accident was compensable accident you do spew causation manning the commission would have been appropriate for this brain i think so now that you mention it i have to say i didn't think about this before today but yes it probably would have been proper because like we've both acknowledg sense i just you know with both whole the whole issue of medical causation as to the seven surgeries she had we had a problem with it it's a different issue right because the only thing the circuit curates said is contained in one paragraph i didn't own a video of this claim it appears to be morbidly obese person i don't believe in any reasonable person looking at these videos and reviewing the doctor's records could reach a conclusion the commission reached i think that medical causation well you know you can move it is two way you can look at it and say well first of all it's a poorly worded transcript in say the very vague order he and the parties never in my system sixteen years of doing this scene and treating dr reverse his opinion during the deposition as much as i think i'm a great lawyer deposing doctors i have never flipped a treating doctor this one flipped because of the surveillance video when this cozen i heard her an argument mistakenly referred to him as one of the section twelve doctors the arbitrator did the same thing he thought that dr mather was a section twelve in fact she chose dr mathers who treat her and he treated her consistently regularly prescribing surgery until he saw the video when he saw the video of what she was doing hyper flexing and flexing he said you know she has full functionality there's no reason to do surgery and he destroyed he refused to see here by the way miss leo was at the deposition personally when  happen and so he can be painted as an evil doctor but i think that he was concerned that he was treating something that may not have been treatable she eventually went on to document teasers who perform seven surgeries  nazis osun in general way say it can be symptomatic even without a trump trauma and that's our argument here that perhaps at most she suffered a back strain but that she didn't have this aggravation of sp think the standard is manifest weight here i just feel that the manifest weight i think that it is almost indisputable that she had a congenital problem that got worse not because of an accident but because three doctors and i witnessed the other thing about the eye witness testimony this nurse miss dickerson who said that she saw pain on the person's face you know miss leo never told her she had pain she said it has thirty years as a  nurse she knows pain when she sees pain in a person's face were you you couldn't view the video yourself and see if she saw it you know you can you see any pain she did not hesitate in fertilizing her lawn during her yard work bending over hyper flexing she did that for over half an hour and i i didn't see any pain right you know i mean this isn't something that an expert needs to look at we don't need a nurse to see her so it's not just it's the surveillance it's the eyewitness testimony it's the physician three of four of them i guess i mean the only evidence that i see is that from the teaser those who perform seven surgeries and who gave her a causal connection i just think the that there is minute i just think it's against the manifest way to be evidence to say that she was injured because of work that's it and that's my argument i will defer to this court as to the issue of jurisdiction i would propose that it be sent back to binding weeden and some if there's some accelerated way to do that to find out her opinion but but otherwise if if you find that it's completely reversed in all respects i don't personally believe it should have been i think there were compensable accidents i think there may be medical causation as to a strain and even as to t t d we paid a certain amount of t t t that i think the jurisdiction issue a bit more because i appreciate the court's concern and this honor to protect my petitioner i think i would have been taking a huge whisk had i done anything but take