morning we i mean charles gavel on behalf of the board point in this particular case morning to all of you hopeful this case presents itself on a manifest week argument with  think both parties concede that fact in this particular case are not going to belabor the issue i think everything is set forth in the brief in the particular occasion but i would touch on a few matters and i feel their importance for this particular matter and of course if  disability in this particular case of the applicant or takes no issue that the incidence complained of there are three of them which occurred as alleged constitute actually as i term has been defined and applied article three passion four take any issue with the fact that an aggravation of a preexisting condition may in fact constitute a disability under certain under the law as provided but what the board does argue in this case is that none of the evidence  question either cause or contributed to the disability of the applicant in this particular case the first incident was august tenth two thousand and four but if it had a bad time a very long history notice of injury the day after and as i said no treatment in this particular he did not call there were no witnesses cite an incident i made three two thousand and five wrestling a large individual states that he that injuries actually please i'm sorry that injury is actually disputed we are just not that the incident occurred that the activity occurred we know that he was present we know that there was an activity o testified that he primarily received chiropractic treatment prior to these incidents and question record is very clear that he received medical treatment by dr walker and i think dr boots are you teasing in two thousand and two and two thousand and three he also retreats each treatment an examination of serve bush hospital applicant had testified at the time of hearing that no doctor before had told him prior to the incident that surgery might be an option to relieve his symptoms that is not correct because the testimony or the medical evidence in the record is very clear that by dr walker that in two thousand and two he in fact inquired whether surgery would relieve his discomfort in his back he was also prescribed a ten ok small moderate body so he's basically stating that there was nothing nothing which cost a disability on these occurrences nor was there an aggravation of a preexisting situation decision or can't merely reweigh the evidence because somebody doesn't like that decision it's our belief in this particular case that the circuit court did in fact require the evidence and one of the comments in the judge's decision in that particular case was that causation is strictly a items and i pointed out your the fact that there were no reports filed on the date of the three in some instances or were no reports filed there was no emergency medical regime treatment he didn't see the doctor to two weeks after the second  fact that he expressed in his testimony and in his erotic tori's and he never really experienced pain before is just unfounded because the record is very clear that prior to the incident in question he did express pain and he did express to his i'm comfortable correct me if i'm wrong i believe it was a comment in his briefs stating that compensated compensation may have paid on some of these points it is our position very clearly that whether compensation paid on a plane or not is not an issue before the board the part of the record that firmly supports it that's a question best counter i believe in the way cation the other case the court was critical of the medical decision saying that the medical decision had no foundation whatsoever in the palace of the record of the case and so therefore they believe the medical that was relied upon by the board was wholly incompetent because the record refuted back in our case dr matures medical opinion is not refuted it is supported by the record precisely as yes i believe that the expert relied upon but again that we're not dealing with an issue with the board agrees that this individual is disabled now there are some there's there's been a very proposed well you accepted dr cyril came back and said he's not for sale and i think when you read the report with dr bashir is saying in his report is he's not disabled because of these particular injuries i think both he and dr mcginty say that he's just able to have primarily the first surgery was not successful think mckenzie is the one that perform one of the i think probably two of us are that the treatment he received on his back which involved research procedures were late to those acts so if the two thousand and four two thousand and five was an aggravating factor that the first surgery which was a result of two thousand and four orcas are two august tenth two thousand and four surgery for i no i don't believe so good i think that when they look at this when they're if you look at the way the station was i don't think they make the determining factor of whether this is an issue of postage or an issue with evidence there but is it possible that there could be competent evidence there but there is so much overwhelming competent evidence on the other side that it's clearly evident that the wrong decision was made i don't know which way that which way th surgery is not the result of any of those incidents complained of including the first one in two thousand books yes ma'am the what the what the order is saying is that the subsequent surgeries to a great extent first surgery was not was not a successful surgery and basically the success of surgeries were necessary to relieve the scar tissue and that that was a primary reason so i think that there is some question on that on that on that for surgery that was did it but but does it make any difference of the other sets no i think it gets back to the issue of a manifest way when we're dealing with causation we're looking at the whole record here both as marconi says both the medical and the now medical records ticker off the physicians have to concede the disability or the courts are determined no but the but the statute provides you must have three independent medical examinations selected by the board and what the board tries to do in most cases i disliked to do a new selection and not one of necessarily that him perform them for worker's comp or for somebody else in the service so i guess in all cases the boards have to select three independent medical examinations and then on an annual basis before the individual reaches fifty every year there must be a medical examination too for the continuation of disability so as required so you just in some in response stating that his pain in his back at the worst was nine out of ten continuing she states that before medication there were times he was unable to get out of bed or get up from the sitting in a chair he states that after  sitting for a long coughing or driving towards drown it really increases pain now that the only reason i mention these things is this is not indicative of an individual who i or to the person is was in experiencing pain he said he testified that he necessarily wasn't