court judge substituted her decision for the commission itself and without going into great length about man this way the standards could do commission decision itself are taken as itself to stand for the could reasonably infer that three months before this day the man was in an active treatment pattern with the eventual surgeon dr ehrman back in august of two thousand and six he finally goes and undertakes war by this act to be the surgery the subject speech there's a treatment pattern is it a reasonable inference that the initial treatment before the accident the man had a discrimination that is all four or five level he aggravated early i believe it was in five another subsequent december two thousand and five m r i shows a worsening of the discrimination based upon the m r i finding could good commission itself infer from that evidence even by th and in fact indicated based upon those findings dr macneill said surgery this is in january two thousand and six approximately two months before his alleged accident that yes surgery would be warranted under the circumstances but let's try some conservative care first if he has conservative care and could the commission itself infer from these up to drills dirt injections he had some a gradual improvement he has this work incident there's no issue as to the accident itself the treatment pattern it reasonable to infer and in the commission decision actually speaks at that point when you're struck by his assessment itself now can they have the ability whether the decision is to to want to right or wrong if the inferences that are made just in these medical indians awarding the man a temporary aggravation of five percent of a person there's no logic there's no explanation there's no documentation from the circuit court in order to november fifth two thousand and twelve just that it's against the manifest weight of the of the opposite result is clearly a parent but i believe that the commission decision itself that it's eleven pages there's also dissent there there's also indications from the from the two commissioners as to what they base their opinion on and i believe it's reasonable so in other words does i believe that the circuit court overstepped its boundaries overstepped its authority per se and not finding it to commission decision had these inferences that were made in regards to this man's current condition of bill being it wasn't causally related to the right word but your honor and and all due regard i don't know how you can accelerate or aggravate or exacerbated the existing condition when the same surgery that the man undergone after his work injury was the exact same feature the doctor were testifying to recommended in december of two thousand and five in fact in january two thousand and six to the man decides maybe i put it and there's also is it reasonable to to infer that their activities of daily living the records of the treaters you get to is is that the man had this exact procedure that was before the work injury before the work accident before his activities of daily living it was inevitable that he was going to have the surgery not only affected his own surgeon recommended beforehand but he  sought a second opinion with a document callous well when he came to the surgeon is reasonable and this is before the accident or injury so is it a quasi never could it be a positive factor in a temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition i believe that the circuit court without  chains report says chance report says that the clean record that he felt seventy percent improved after the steroids injection he received that april tenth he also wrote that he advised the when he had the surgery in august of two thousand and six and it actually happened to be the same procedure which doctor here may recommended it was authorizer of least he was going to undergo prior to the word injury so i don't think that if we can argue and then again we have different back in other words we have facts are in dispute for the commission itself you know the decision is what the decision is it whether good bad or indifferent i believe that the circuit court overstepped its boundaries and find that a clearly opposite result that he has the same consistent care in treatment back as to have to drop their injections i'm not mistaken before his or injury as a couple of afterwards as well and it's a current course of treatment that all relates to back to his original recommendation it was revealed just twenty second i think if you take the medical records in their totality if you take the the course of treatment if you take the examine physician dr gleason is testimony that that the the man suffered a temporary aggravation of a preexisting condition that would have resolved in six to eight weeks and i quote but the lady was far more tender especially noted upon straightly grazes does that sound like the full length he said his condition was unchanged from my name is michael ransack i'm here in behalf of the employee mr brand's up i intend to be very brief because the questions i heard from the court i think of restated some of the things i was going to say here the real deficiency commissions the two commissioners majority decision is that they rely pretty much upon almost entirely upon the fact that the m r i apparently did not change all that watch between august and december and in march the problem is that the commission's decision ignores the fact that in january this gentleman was fined everybody all the evidence that he had no neurological symptoms and he was neurologically compact before this m and the difference in his condition has dr here been recognized was that his symptoms increased afterwards he lost his last one reflex as your honor noted back to blighty noted not that his condition was not changed but that his condition was in fact much worse and he's even getting he's he's even getting to stare at injections in july another point the doctor here man made that i think threads through all of this is that before this this officer was doing fine after the march incident the condition of his back whatever was in there shown by the m r i was causing him to have problems now with the activities of daily living in other  words as officer brenda said picking up some laundry and putting it to the washer was enough to set him off and documents that that was a problem the bottom line is that the medical testimony that was that there was a significant change in his condition from somebody who was well t anything else at this point you've heard enough i thank you very much thank you favorite  commission also noted unable twenty four two thousand and six dr chang reported a seventy percent improvement with his pain i can change recommended resume physical therapy in perspective lyrica may twenty second two thousand and six does a reported further improvement