condition which was a labor altera need for surgery was possibly related to the original work injury on april first two thousand and five the commission found that the employee's left to condition was not related to the original work injury there's a three page decision that the commission rendered whereby they laid out the reasoning they judge the credibility of the at medical evidence make findings as to opinions incredibility of the witness's testimony specifically in regards to dr glasgow and dr jacobs and they found that dr jacobs opinions were more credible and adopted those he has the opinions and therefore decided and five the employee had a longstanding preexisting congenital bilateral hip problem so much sooner next she admitted in her testimony that at least one surgeon fired to do this work in already recommended bilateral care placement she was also my parents and patient of dr blair's goes and had most recently seen him on march eighteenth two thousand and five approximately two to two and a half weeks before the work accident at which point dr glasgow referred her to an a physician in st louis named dr chloe c an expert for the hips for a determination of whether he felt she was a candidate for bilateral capacity she did have to work baseline status with respect to her hip and there has been during dr glasgow's testimony he admitted that he kept two separate files for this employer one for her preexisting bilateral hip dysplasia condition and one for in the work and the only documents in the work file service would be april seventh and april fourteenth visits to his office along with copies of the emergency room records from april first and i believe that's you that's from therapy during his deposition is that he cannot be sure that the liberal turn was caused by the injury on april first two thousand and five and that it is possible that that label tear was praises that also fits with dr jacobs testimony who indicated that it is possible for someone to receive and have a liberals here injury as the result of an acute the fall but given the mere fact that this particular interview carol had an extensive preexisting condition of bilateral hip glasgow's testimony that it may be directly related is the mere fact of his own record in practice in his office and how he handled her particular care he had to separate files and he never put another document in her work comp file after april fourteenth two thousand and five she had m r grammer on left him within three months she had it on july first two thousand and five if dr glasgow all that time had believed that the left hip was connected to the hip from the work injury on the first he should have kept all of those documents and the work on file and kept open and he didn't do sound specifically also the timeline of her treatment is that she the treatment of any kind or nature with seeing a doctor players go in may of two thousand and six during this entire time she works old unity and then she quits working for wal mart in october two denying that as a standard this extra scrutiny and or the modified majority rule i certainly understand mr turner's argument that it's used in a perfect model of judging and overturn or may have a better assessment of judging a witness is credibility however this is a causation issue mostly on the medical evidence and what's in the medical records and what's not if you i'll concede that if strictly looking at whether she witnesses side by side giving lane testimony was lying was telling the truth the person who's looking at them and seeing their mannerisms that may be a viable argument this court has consistently rejected that and it's well settled that the commission is the proper fact finding body to determine the witnesses credibility and their opinions the commission did so here in rendering that dr jacobs opinions were more credible they base that in part on dr plasmas testimony dr jacobs testimony the petitioner's testimony and a review of what was in the medical records versus what its original ploy testified in order for this court for interview in court to overturn a commission's decision the opposite conclusion must be apparent and the mere fact that there are conflicting opinions here and dr glasgow is the treating physician doesn't even have a strong opinion to say that oh i am adamant in this absolute that this left him liberals here was you know a result of the april first two thousand artwork accident he doesn't even have a strong opinion he certainly it may be a direct cause but he compete clearly admits that it's very possible that it was for existing and he can't be sure that it was related to the good work of looters then you're for those reasons i would respectfully request that this just as possibly have been caused as a result of trauma and when i asked him would that include falling and doing the splits on old water and well covered floor he said yes so you've got most doctors in a situation where preexisting evidence of any left hip label tear and using the might or good language is a standard foundational lingers so you're saying what's the big deal with that exactly the question really is under the existing standard manifest weight was one of their sufficient facts for the for the for the commission such that before the commission such that it was wrong for the circuit court to overturn the commission's decision on the basis of manifest weight and my position is there are insufficient to take an emergency room record that says she's followed she's complaining a mostly right get pain which is consistent with her testimony i did the splits and we had it mostly on my right side to take dr glas she's complaining now again no way to get pain and then he's no to the fourteenth or he says she's returned to baseline with respect or hips and say that serves as a basis to find the petitioner's testimony incredible is wrong she testified i was on crutches when i went into his office on the sub he asked me at that time is indicating his record to try to wean myself off watches but it isn't until after april fourteenth that she's back at work at the deli and trying to work without options and she testifies that's when i start getting increased pain and now it's more on my left side so that when she does present an eighteenth to barnes hospital the doctor saying she's complaining more of the left hip pain granted she doesn't give the history of the zone because your honor i don't think those are sufficient fads commission to have based its decision in overturning the findings of the arbitrator who went to a detailed analysis in further had the benefit of observing you have a situation where the commissions overturning you're a trader who's had the opportunity to observe the wood and make a determination credibility that in a minute on the court of review then has the opportunity should have the opportunity to and said you know we're not morning to consider giving credence to halt and i'm not saying that the court should should bring could back what i'm saying is is it time for a modified rule here when you look at  fiscal reports from the commission for the way asked eight years and you see between forty eight and fifty two percent of the arbitration decisions are reviewed when you see in the last six years you're going from about up ousmane seventy seven to i think seven plus commission decisions when labor again management is arguing about it like the time it takes to get a case through the commission is it time to look at what we're doing in terms of how we evaluate a and i'm not saying get rid of manifest way what i'm saying is the trial court and the court of appeal should have been up to me to look at the reasoning of the arbitrator when the commission over terms the decision of the arbitrator with respect to this issue