school district three o three and a clean just moves this honorable court to reverse the decision of the circuit court below which had a firm's of the commission majority in to enter a decision consistent with that of dissenting commissioner simpson the plaintiffs argued that airplanes argues that the commission's awarded permanent parcel disability benefits and temporary total disability benefits awarded it was excessive and against the manifest weight of the evidence st i'll discuss the commission's findings and conclusions regarding that agree of permanent partial disability sustained by the defendant as a result of her fa were not supported by the record and are against the manifest weight of the ovens when the majority of the commission gave their decision they simply affirmed  they don't have to but i think in order to provide a thorough record or in this case there was a lot of medical nuances that the  plaintiff thinks that the findings of commissioner simpson who actually wanted her record and noticed all of the issues in noted them in her decision was more thorough than simply i guess affirming and adopting so i'm not sure that that would make the fact i don't think you can say one did not look at the records findings or one look better more carefully miss thomas there's no question as i understand she yes there were a couple and then i think but the problem also enter is that she had a psychiatric condition and that a couple of doctors also indicated it were not related  the work accident so that's yes one of the reasons for the appeal is while in rye we believe that the permanency of where is excessive is because the that plate or petition psychological issues after that let me ask you about that is there any issue that the claimant is suffering from some type of a psychiatric issue or disorder  i believe there is some type of psychological disorder but the issue is that if this were arguing that it's not related to her work accident and was if there was there is a body of blows or not that's a psychological injury would be co all back and her concussion and her cervical sprain have resolved back in august th eleven which is also when we believe that the t t benefits should have been terminated what is your evidence or findings throughout this entire time and i think that's when it shifted into this psychological issue was are anyone serious so you that there is a connectivity this psychological condition of the that he had it or that she had well that her condition was related to the accident ok and her ways those various her two of her treating doctor has received a in accurate description of the injury and it goes back to whether or not she lost consciousness for forty five minutes at the time of the injury and both dr and siad indicated and actor bob link indicated that the petitioner never told her that she did not lose consciousness so that's why we think that it's important that when you're not told an accurate description of your injury or condition at the time that it would happen that that's going to ultimately have facts whether or not it is actually related  babbling both said that it was important and whether she lost consciousness or not and ultimately i think what i guess the diagnosis as related to the actual work accident could potentially be different from down or hospital those were admitted into evidence by the plaintiff and those clearly indicate that she denied losing consciousness and denied any amnesia and then after that point defined it went on to indicate that she started reporting to her doctors after that that she did lose consciousness so it's basically her testimony versus what's actually in the learned that from coworkers claim and actually lost consciousness there could hear but she never she never denied saying that she did not lose consciousness in those records and at the testimony at arbitration i suppose my observation is that the commission had two theories it could w and determine whether or not she did lose consciousness it was an explanation for why it is she may not have stated that she knew that she lost consciousness would emerge in the same place that she fell for like forty five minutes that's what the defendant testifying to a trial but it's far is there's no other evidence outside of her testimony using what was recommended and commissioner simpson's dissent doesn't say in there how he arrived at that number she arrived at the number because she also did not believe that the petitioner suffered from a continued to suffer from a post concussion syndrome commissioner since in believe that she had a mild concussion and cervical sprain and that's what she based her ten percent and i'm going to jump to the question of the temporary total disability benefits again we're relying on commissioner simpson's dissent and she recommended that we paid only temporary total disability benefits until august th two thousand and eleven and that number date was was determined based on and when we when we took the deposition of dr school at ski she indicated at the time that he saw her on june st twenty alive and that the petitioner's concussion symptoms have results and that he was only recommending the six weeks of physical therapy for the cervical strain and that even if the petitioner chose not to or season even if the defendant chose not to undergo that fair that she was still able to return to work at that time and he was recommending the fair because she had become so sudden terri from the date of the accident her medical condition at the time of trial and that it was related to the work accident and not her other mental health issues and we moved the court to reverse the decision of the circuit court below affirmed and affirmed the commission majority opinion and we further asked that you enter a decision that is consistent with the dissenting opinion of commissioner simpson which is for ten percent loss of person as a whole for the mild concussion and cervical sprain is well as term many temporary total disability benefits on august th tw including we have it in stock positions of doctors all agree that ms bud span suffered a concussion employer asserts that there is an inconsistent history in that emergency room record that  it says so explicitly quote we need back after look at all you want me to go to sleep was clock which considering the circumstances might have been her way of saying that she had suffered some alteration in her consciousness and despite all the act even without the loss of consciousness the emergency room diagnosed her as having a few close head injury the average traitor and to the arbiters findings included that ms bun stand it in fact suffer a loss of consciousness at kind of the flock and what evidence did the arbitrator base that decision she had or had very hard if she had not lost consciousness it does not matter as much as the employer would want you to believe and that's because you can have a concussion and symptoms of a concussion without loss of consciousness how do we unsteadiness if there is difficulty with alertness or concentration that can be a part of concussion syndrome even if they were not unconscious and of course these medical records are  it can't do this because we all know d that it's the commission's sole parag if you didn't herman the extent of these types of warrants you cannot do this because you cannot substitute your own judgment  there are very good i think that we need to reiterate the fact that throughout this entire period the defendant had no  neurological findings out of her arm or eyes everything was negative which would attest to the fact that she had in mild concussion and the permanency as recommended by commissioner simpson would be more in line  mild concussion and cervical strain what about the idea that somehow whether or not there was a period of unconsciousness to an injury triggered the scenario where you have claimed that he was less well than they were before the accident well i think the issue is did she actually have but she actually unconscious i know that's what she reported to her providers but just because she reported it doesn't make it true and i think you misunderstood me the bigger issue is we have someone who was not on well as the zacks and  then whether or not there's neurological exams that are positive or not you know there's not that based upon the medical findings you have someone who was previously relatively well and is now very unwell and that seems to be what the doctors findings were that the arbitrator relied upon right but there's also findings that say he had treat a previous mental condition and i guess were arguing that he mental health status is not related to the original work accident and in one of the records she even admits that there are stressors at homes and she's having family issues so who's you know who's to say that that is not what is testimony that the accident triggered the findings that there are long term effects what does that leave your case the triggering of more substantial the commission in the st no i don't think we decided we see whether or not it's awarded and her war a war it should be adjusted to ten percent person as a whole for her concussion mild concussion and cervical strain and then adjust the temporary total disability benefits through the date of accidents through august