hitting his head on the concrete and also end up hitting his back onto the ground he also lost consciousness for about thirty seconds he was transported from the scene of the accident or at th disc do they not it but the question is their opinions differ in determining when at her nation occurred to be said it was related to the accident weiss that it was not correct that correct your honor so but commission views the evidence differently than the arbitrator and finds dr who the causal connection opinion was offered without knowledge and finding of the c p s can take another date of the accident and is therefore not credible and is and taken on the date of the accident if you look at dr vices opinion dr rice didn't even look at an m r i report on the lumbar spine and did not look at the fact that if the team is not the best way is not the gold standard of diagnosing garnishes that would be an m r i if you have two conflicting medical opinions one going one way but going the other why does a commission have to adapt opinion and whose job is it to assess the medical evidence it was the commission's job to assess the medical evidence your honor however the opinion cannot be based on imagination that is the manifest weight of the evidence and what we are that this is an acute honey age and it happen april th team but he couldn't really pinpoint what caused it to happen acutely is based less than is not very credible because if there is no incidents and nothing happened of the of the c two thousand and sixteen that's the story he gave during the direct examination upon cross examination and he admitted there was no c t of the lumbar spine in two thousand and twelve and then further admitted it's really indicated happened acutely it appen sometime in april of two thousand and seventeen however he couldn't really explain how it happened even though there was no intervening accidents there was nothing in between even then i think  found wasn't to be the case that the herniation would be related to april of twenty seven p an accident that is incorrect because the commission has already found seventeen based on the symptoms and the records that were reviewed it just didn't then point what that cause was you're not arguing that there is an intervening cause the doctor didn't find the cause are you i'm arguing that is because that is the decision of the commission that nobody appeal the arbitrator's that no intervening accident i don't have the elect competent than the feeling now i know counsel wants to come back and say oh no it didn't happen on o that are not in evidence i addressed this in my briefs and i need to address that again i know you've read my brief but she continues to argue that she just couple just argued again she keeps repeating facts that are not true which is that she tried to get medical treatment in december of two thousand and sixteen he testified he did not request medical treatment in till april of two thousand and seventeen it is crystal clear crystal clear i asked him that question multiple times he had little to he he testified that when he when he requested medical treatment he spoke to the claims adjustor the claims adjuster gave me the phone number of the insurance company i ask when what happened he said it was when he could when he couldn't get out of that he had the incident with his truck where his head hit the top he felt like he hit with a sledge hammer he said it was an april of two thousand and seventeen that's clear continues to argue that this happened in december it never happened countless is asking you if you believe you requested medical treatment between december th and and april of two thousand and seventeen he testified he never requested medical treatment it's clear what did the commission say they agreed with it's in its effect in evidence the facts that are not in evidence that counsel keeps arguing is that he requested treatment to somebody it's not there the other argument that counsel keeps making is this gold standard m r i versus c t scan where did that come from to make that up it's not in the evidence i  dr colby's evidence deposition testimony this morning he never said that that is what counsel was saying the gold standard he no he didn't review it dr koop beast testimony was that i asked him what if he if he was goin to order an m r i and he said i didn't need to there was already one i said well you ordered an x ray he said there wasn't an x ray i said well there wasn't december well he didn't findings which were consistent with petitioner falling off the building fifty feet which was a severe injury and that even dr kobi testified would have caused objective findings as as reference by petitioner with the multiple fractures he suffered in fact dr kobi even testified that that could be caused chronic pain in his back from such a severe injury dr kobi did not have that report i as crew be during his test during his deposition if the reports would have been helpful to have and he said maybe probably and then eventually he said it it really didn't matter i mean a changed his position then he had no opinion that all was said and exacerbation was he that he found that the that the the incident with the truck was an exacerbation even though he never went back to work he started treating and never stopped treating that was an exacerbation but what what happened and in december was an egg revision it made no sense  testimony was not credible based on his testimony you could see from the from his deposition transcript he was not aware of petitioners preexisting condition because he didn't have the records counsel's brief reference  during direct examination did it ever go back to baseline no he said it that worse he said that again did it ever feel the same way she petitioner said no it was it it never went away didn't go away until you have surgery it as far as is responding police your honor the evidence is overwhelming from pictish and his testimony is crystal clear that he went back to work full duty as a tow truck driver which is a heavy job he testified to you know some of the activities that he performed and fact i think if i am not mistaken he testified that he was you know he'd be completely covered in sweat after after a day or work which is not unusual  what but he went back to work for five months doing the same job into what happened until april th when he had the incident where he was sponsored around the truck how do we know that that's what he testified to who corroborated that opinion dr kobi because dr kobi kept saying i don't know i i don't know why he stopped working and maybe somebody took you know maybe somebody took him off in fact that there could be testimony was that the reason maybe he didn't he kept working for five months was that he needed money he had to pay the rent he said i don't know i don't know what the situation was maybe somebody kept him off work that wasn't in writing petitioner did not testify that petitioner testified that he went back to work for five months he continued to do is same job he didn't have any light duty restrictions and he did that up until april th that and everything was crystal clear he called into the to work the work in the claims adjustor the claims adjustor deny treatment why because he was claiming it was from an incident december claims adjusters you know den report an accident in fact that the employer's testimony was the st notice of the titian reporting and in a nd accident or an instant it was when they received the application for adjustment a claim why did they file an acute intervening accident he was driving a truck that's the springs were broken he pounced around the truck and he hit his head he felt like he was hit by a sledgehammer again i'm repeating myself but that's the intervening accident that is  what ended up causing him to obtain medical treatment emergency room treatment in fact even dr kobi testified he didn't he doesn't know why the titian or went back to or started treating with dr robi he said i read and i asked them did dr koop be recommend says the goal therapy he said i don't know you have to ask him i then said did dr adams recommend physical therapy well i don't know let's book and he looked and he said oh well record therefore in a response against your question judge is that the the evidence from pictish generous testimony corroborates the testimony of dr qubaty as to why he needed treatment and when that happened that happened in april i think so let's see what's the and i guess the only thing though the other only other issue i wanted to bring up that counsel mentioned was that she referenced that there was you know there was no intervening accident there or not she said accident or incident between december and april there may not have been an intervening accident but there was certainly an accident or an incident employer on april th while he was doing this pro from decatur to lenka but we tried to fight him on that st and indicated it never happened as proven by the stipulation she read the disputed that this accident he did have increased in his sometime apology that he dead go and dr rice and both doctors to be indicated that whatever this was this was a very temporary claiming that it did happen but it it didn't happen we didn't believe that this accident aggravated his condition to the point that he would have required further create man other than the initial emergency room just for he could hardly move or walk the have the medical causation does indicate that this was not an intervening incidentally this has merely just exacerbated some