four of them have a manifest weight and standard which included the acts of the findings of the finding of accident on station their words of t t v medical expenses and travel expenses and the remaining issue involves the statutory section eight eight three we have requested before to review that language and we are requesting as you know that section as it applies to this case mr simpson allegedly work accident on june thirtieth two thousand and six on that day claim he was pulling a preform which is a piece of steel that's proximately very panels out of the exterior and he placed his hand on the machine pulled on it and felt an electrical burning or burning electrical shock pain about time to send sent by his own admission stated that he did not report the injury to his employer at that time the thirty year the plant had a scheduled shutdown over the fourth of july for that week so mr simpson was off work until july ninth two thousand and six while he testified as to being in pain and lying in a recliner at this entire time that he was off work at no time did he ever see any medical treatment or the alleged injury or any of the symptoms he then returned to work on july night proceeded to work the next four days and on the thirteenth he called his wife and said it was a pain now his wife works a good marriage told him to come to the hospital when he sees medical treatment he does not tell the hospital staff that he is there for an injury he tells them he has a burning pain down his arm and that he has no injury and that he had this condition for two years but it's been worse in the last week with that in mind the hospital thought he was having a cardiac event which he obviously was not they eventually taken him our eyes and basically when you get to determine whether somebody had an accident or not the case law in illinois makes it perfectly clear that while it tensioners testimony is sufficient to support a finding for it work no witnesses and we have a gentleman showing up at the hospital thirteen days after his alleged accident specifically saying he did have an injury and that eventually reporting an accident to his employer on the private reported on the of those positions had any other information in fact when dr greene so actually it was provided with the court from the medical medical facility it's meriton he basically came to the conclusion he pulled and our opinion and opposite conclusion is clearly evident because this is not what somebody does when they have a work they don't not report to their employer on the day that occurs they don't not go after treatment while they're off work for a week they don't come back to work don't report it then they don't work another four days still don't report it when they don't finally get medical treatment and tell them oh no i haven't had an injury and then finally reported to their there's nothing in the works for the sixteen years i think it was i think it was a big part of their position and i don't think that the commission looked up to looked deeply into the opinions of the treating physicians specifically doctor for opinion of showing that was a general condition but the difference here is this is not a claim for repetitive trauma this is a claim for an actual injury and and even if you know moving beyond whether there was or was not an accident he was able to work up until then but you know what you said before four more days after that he actually finished the ship after the alleged accident and work or more day the fact that he worked there for sixteen years without ever having a work injury you know that's extremely commendable i know a lot of people who wish they had employees that were that good however the fact that you're a dependable employee does not necessarily mean that all of the facts support a finding of an accident and moving beyond accident in the causation  even if you were to find that he had an accident you know then that becomes the most obvious injury from this chromatic claim and you get into the two other conditions that were weren't benefits which include the lower back and the shoulder and back when he reported the injury to his employer there's nothing about blowback when he when he goes to see dr thompson there i think there is that there was an argument made that dr johnson found that he had a low back that he addressed the low back at that time which would have been on june third i'm sorry to lie eighteen thousand text but if you actually read the entire report he's talking out spider leave this he's actually it goes back to the x ray which was on the cervical spine you know so there's really no mention of dr concept he puts on a questionnaire for dr rental that his back was hurting but that there was no there was no evidence of this pain examining him back you know if you look at dr results testimony later on is like when he showed up here this was not an issue so he had problems with it when he goes to see dr who or there's no mention of any low back point or injury when he sees dr there's no finding or anything that says i have a low back problem when he goes for physical therapy that is directed by dr fauci again there is nothing to do with his back and by his own statements to the pain management doctor which he gets to from doctor for next office of two thousand and six now this is a traumatic claim that's not a traumatic accident because november is you know five months after the alleged acts so in our yes he does and when you look at his testimony and i'm not sure that he has all of the facts relating to time was off he made some comment about the back being mentioned at the hospital that's not in hospital records and you know you know his neck was a big problem be that as it may once again you get into a it's a set of facts that are not consistent with a traumatic work accident and obviously when you when you read dr but so much reliance on and that is because we dr miller got them doing the surgery which he originally thought there was a slap there which there was not and he basically testified that the labor was not detached like you would expect with a big right this is  traumatic accident the findings that dr miller may were consistent in his opinion of a chronic problem not a traumatic injury like the one described by mr simms again this is not a repetitive trauma claim this is not a let's have everything work done now that we're all work because we may or may not a pattern actually in a very it is a traumatic claim the symptoms that i have and what he reported everybody makes the commission's finding and our pain is against him in this way the evidence and that is why we have asked support review it the remaining two issues the t t t the medical expenses travel expenses all stem from the treatment that was rendered related to those conditions as well as the other issues so there are two issues here the first being whether or not the initial treatment at say i'm sorry a good samaritan constitutes emergency room treatment it was thirteen days out of the action titian has made the argument that it was  event occurring and so we have asked the court to and we actually asked the commission and you'll see in their decision they don't even address the argument with regard to the emergency room and lie and then the case law that supports applying that just because you go to the emergency room doesn't doctor hold also in the same office so i mean we have one set of treatment they say you go see a doctor throwing out this other doctor you know she's now looking for with a bounce in the wall then they go to  well what i would have with the same response that is he did not have a work related injury before then and he was hoping that the pain was subsiding go away it did not his wife testified about the difficulties he was experiencing at home it just so happens that after his injury the plant was open and shut down every year in july and shut down for two weeks so he's not at the point so but when he does go to the doctor's office well initially he goes the emergency room of the hospital they do do an m r i the surf spot why things got confused at the hospital when he's there for neck pain that you serve one right but then the sending to the cardiac unit i don't know he doesn't know either  verified that ben is treating physician well known where in the records are there any prior complaints of injuring his neck or back until this incident that occurs at work so why are things why are they confusing initially well perhaps because he's never been hurt like that when dr net sees him he says his neck was so stiff it was like a board and when dr who sees him in july he also knows that ryan had severe ne system you know the mechanism of injuries consistent with this type of diagnosis and the same thing the testimony of doctors were that the injury report supports how the accident happened when it happened the date of accident is trac your surgeon dr burnett testified that with the severity of the neck pain that bryant was experiencing he would not have have thought that it would be anything unusual for him not to complain of a l his neck was so bad it overshadowed his whole back problem but if you look at thompson's record he makes mention of the low back when he sees him in july some something must have happened there to cause that low back pain brian testified that he was having low back others reference there's a scant reference to that one of the records and then there's no one there's no history of any i'm any prior injury that happens to be where dr cornet practiced initially in his affiliated with them and then if you look at the dr thompson c v that's where he went to school is washington but regardless he's still in the chair for contained not only in the medical records but in my client's testimony in testimony three physicians and even the testimony of the examining physician dr russell who greets this gentleman's neck injury at least that portion of it was dr net said the neck in the back is really dr miller said shoulders related so it's all through the medical records and the facts are there to support the decision of the arbitrator which was unanimously of the case which in our original break we said it never been three sided and i'm telling you this simply because neither the original case or surface cleaning address the actual language found in the statute and if you actually read the statu the statute specifically requires a recommendation a recommendation this is not a recommendation dr thompson had absolutely no idea dr horn that was in fact the petitioner testified that dr thompson did recommend him that he went in there an d our statute specifically uses the word recommended and statement descends and the statute says all medical surgical and hospital services provided by the physician surgeon or hospital initially chosen by employee or by any other position consult an expert institution or other provider of services recommended i said initial service provider or any subsequent provider of medical services in the chain of referrals from said and initial service provider do a recommendation the test no because they went in on september twenty first they said they talked to dr thompson dr thompson flat out deny this he said he never talked to them they walked in they talked to his nurse the nurse filled out the note and i believe that was signed at the bottom now when he may have been provided information at a later date and reviewed it i have no knowledge of that there was never any information put in the records that show but you might be given or when that finding was made that clearly based on dr  own statements he had no idea who dr going out was he didn't talk to them when they came in they came in wanting a referral the nurse filled out the slip he signed his name at the bottom and by mr simpson's own testimony at the hearing he specifically said th  out the name of the person that they've heard about according to your interpretation that would foreclose the treating physician will refer people to the back to back not necessarily by that because if your physician you have a duty to refer your patients to someone  who knows something about if i went to my doctor and asked for a referral for cardiac surgeon i would assume he would send me to someone who he knew something about or someone with a reputation of something he heard it would look at the time so the doctor