howard understandably asked him if there was another injury and according to dr house note there was no there was no indication that there had been another injury mr ricin came back to dr house and month later the symptoms were essentially the had an immediate onset of pain in my knee which which resolved but i continued to have problems thereafter which got worse over time the petitioner didn't testify that dr howard had recited the history wrong  in what are symptoms he may have you might have been having over claimants version is that i was having ongoing knee pain subsequent to my second surgery but like dr house records the petitioner told him he was doing well until he had this episode in july of  it's not in the record i can imagine what happened i think that i can offer you some speculation if you if you're interested in hearing that it exists either you lied i agree that if you look at it on its face you would say why in the world are they c authorized it had been paid on time the source was asked and because of the issue about whether there's been another accident that was never clarified until four days before the surgery west take place and the appointment where this issue came up new year's eve he had a new year's day and then a day between then and then the surgery date you know quite frankly it's the sort of record that that if the operative if he addressed or had seen it before the surgery they probably would have really up to the commission to weigh this fish and see of the evidence of the conflicting medical thinking this sort of what you're saying here i think that's exactly what i'm saying that's exactly what the what what what went on here i mean even you know quite candidly even if you look at dr layman's deposition testimony i mean i think i counted two times on the record examination where he says everything after the second surgery is unrelated to the one nine hundred ninety five accident on cross examination additionally with that with mr point he says on two occasions  maybe there was some in the commission had to sort through dr layman's of dr layman's testimony and i guess figure out you know is for denials greater than you know one quick admission at the end of at the end of the deposition you know i  rely on him number one as he did look at any medical records other than those are generated in conjunction with his own treatment he looked at and the m r i i think from april of two thousand and one but that was pretty much it and his assumption too was that mr singh had had except for maybe a brief period here or there had had unrelenting knee problem since the accident and if you look at the medical records i mean that doesn't appear the case i was talking earlier about what was in dr house records from  december of one thousand nine hundred six but you know then we've got this other big issue of what dr homebuilt will be releases him it will be in february of ninety seven and then again in august of ninety seven you've got almost three and a half years where there's no medical treatment at all and more nineteen i'm sorry in september or so two thousand maybe a little early then i think anyway when mr pressing sees dr darcis in september of two thousand he tells me i have low back pain for a think is just as significant as why isn't that record and what isn't in the record is a three and a half year period of problems with that need we know from the september first visit that mr wresting certainly could communicate if you've been having long term problems he did it on september first with regard to his back if he was having knee problems on september first of two thousand why in the world did he tell dr garsten or more significantly on december the nineteenth when we're three and a half years from him in my day why didn't he say i've had continuing problems all along i don't know there was no testimony from the petitioner that dr garces had gotten it wrong in terms of recording the history that was provided to him by the sister so certainly a reasonable inference that the commission could drawn was something happened two months prior to december nineteenth two thousand was this man's problems to flare up and the fact that he said nothing about ongoing problems could affect the commission to conclude that there that the the problem wasn't until it was unrelated to the initial work injury we want to kind of talk about how the commission had to sort through the the medical testimony so i won't with you i mean the bottom line here really is it's a question of is there evidence to support what here there is an evidence here that there isn't such a lack of evidence that no tribe you know would be compelled to reach an opposite result in the final analysis you know we're simply asking the commission's decision  either exist or above yes of this this is a case in which the commission made very specific fine and also made made very specific findings of paxson specific  in when did you percy carson's two thousand yes you can something here that doesn't really pin you kind of doctors and engineers do you have a fact we decided it was a gap of almost two and a half years have been some discussion about it at the record shows or had to be some discussion or disclosure that hey i had this fire injury and i've got you know this is long term problems with my heat and then the heat well what the petitioner testified is that  know it was worse that time but he had the problem all along and certainly the entry of severe ostroff rightists which well the commission found it stabilized by late one nine hundred ninety seven you're arguing you had the problem all along and yet in italy he didn't seek any kind of further treatment for living with this later life which is only actually a few years later went back and he has to have surgery just replaced in this case i don't see how there can be a causal connection if the first of the surgeries every move of this are related to the subsequent surgery records were concerned make it what's in there and that december nineteenth two thousand note the commission had to sort through that and decide what they were going to find find appropriate or find believable and what they were going to find credible so again i don't i think i think one's work i suppose it's a very good possibility and you know i guess the one thing i would say about the jurisdictional issue that i sort of alluded to when it came up in