from december second of two thousand and four up to march twenty fourth of two thousand and five there was nearly twenty visits with doctor even soon and had no time did was there ever a mention of a work  the witness key themes you if you look at the employees testimony and note he says it was a specific incident he says that he was fine or semi final guess after august four from the first accident that dr kennedy released him up until december first two thousand and four when he lifts this route joyce and i think at the time his testimony indicated that he was in such severe pain it was it was even worse than after what he had experienced in october of zero three so no i mean all the evidence said that i saw through the doctors through his testimony through the witnesses testimony if you look at he's testimony it was that he had been working with the employee for a few weeks never said anything and then and actually he didn't know the date of the accident but he said that he remembers this guy telling him that he was having trouble with his back treated with him he treated with dr kennedy had some injections by dr graham in that case he just goes back to doctor even sent and there really is no mention of of work injury at that time the first time it actually appears his march twenty fourth two thousand and five with dr kennedy dr kennedy actually takes a history of lifting a roof joyce but that happened in november so at the time of dr kennedy's deposition kennedy i asked them if it would if this guy told them it was your understanding it was a specific incident he said yes dr kennedy admitted that he had no no actual injury date of december first two thousand for  causation opinion all related back to well initially it was october twenty second two thousand and three at the time of his deposition which was several years later i believe in zero seven october of zero seven that's at the point  changed and said that after a review of his records to him the evidence showed that you know it was all due to this december first he said november december but again he did admit that there was no december two thousand four accident that he four and october twenty second is it's i think it's the same a ploy of a different insurance company then when you have cost you know if that all gets taken into account then maybe it really just goes back to the october twenty second two thousand and three accident and then this client or the insurance company is not on the hook i don't know i just know that they kept with december first two thousand and four there's just nothing to show that there's a december first two thousand and four accident you know i know ours are back to cuba well i mean that the  claimed it was a specific incident he says that he was fine after august of zero four but he was released he was continuing to work he was fine until december first of two thousand for his lifting of rejoice this is march twenty fourth of zero five is what he said on kennedy but again it goes back even more severe after october twenty second of two thousand and three which he had treated for over a year you would think that december second two thousand and four he would have told the doctor even sent that yeah you know i was injured yesterday lifting a r gallons of cool rock and you go back down you continue to go to dr events in december sixteenth he's having some trouble with plywood on a roof today so had something happen obviously or first as the employee claimed you would just assume that it's not for his story and i mean that's he would have told dr even some december second two thousand and four were he would have told them within those twenty something visit said he had before he gets to dr kennedy and then on top of that you would assume that you would tell after kennedy yes i inj you didn't say yes i think well why can't the commission believe i didn't say they couldn't believe it but if you're claiming a specific incident and there's nothing to show that there is a specific incident and th well they initially all back on the october twenty second two thousand and three accident if you don't have a december first or you don't believe the guy that had a december first two thousand and four accident or when it happened or what happened then everything goes back to again i just think with the accident issue that it is a manifest weight i mean i guess other than his testimony at trial but it's in the first that that's all he has a lawyer so that both and then they did they did that's why we're here  the other issue is causation nation is based basically based on accident because of this october twenty second two thousand and three accident dr kennedy didn't have yet initial records from dr even saying in december actually relates it to whatever happened in november which going back to december second two thousand and four to dr di vinci you know whatever happened there was no work injury listed were reported to dr evens and as of december second the employee complained about signaling significant after paying him after about a week and a half on natura after which time he wasn't able to do that job that was testified to by keith eugenia which is significant for the employees testimony as to the accident date now the fact that the employee may have been having some back symptoms during that maybe we could have carried a time up to the point where the pain in testimony and it's certainly not inconsistent with the man the station date of december first because it was the very next day that he went to see dr robinson so i don't believe that the information in the medical records of dr robinson is at all inconsistent with the accident pay a manifestation dated december first two thousand for now with regard to causation yes there was a prior accident in october of two thousand and three it needed surgery but did think he could benefit from some pain management and the the petitioner did go in have some injections on his back and he was released at maximum medical improvement by both dr robinson and dr kennedy by august of two thousand and four but significantly after this first injury the planes or excuse me the petitioner was able to continue his work he had a period of time between october of zero three to over twenty first of two twenty first of both three i believe was when he returned to work and he did not miss any work as an ironworker doing that curious subsequent to returning to work in december of zero three this despite continuing to see some pain management treatment during this interim period of time and before he was actually said to be at maximum medical treatment by dr robinson and doctor kennedy now interestingly and i think importantly is the fact that that release at m m i by dr kennedy was without any restrictions and he did work during this entire period of time without stopping us in our work or until december first of two thousand and four when he had the what he described as severe unrelenting unabating pain in his low back more located on the right side and also significantly he had complaints of late progress of his medical treatment following the october of three accident compared to that the treatment he received after december first or for an accident he was not able to benefit from conservative can have some back pain without having to to say oh i'm going to rush to the doctor it wasn't until december second that he felt the need to go see seek treatment and that was the day after that the accident data he testified felt like plaintiff was consistent in number of job searches he did but they after a period of six months apparently petitioner was getting very very frustrated in his job search efforts and he be paying what the spot it considered to be non compliant he could tie my job applications when asked why did you leave your last employment employment had a back injury or had restrictions on lifting and this was not what he was instructed to do by the book patient lexer he was instructed to say will explain so that he could possibly have an interview with this prospective employer and then can possibly convince the prospective employer that he would be able to do this job despite the fact that he had the stack injury and th me and so then we we go to the employer and what did the employer show in terms of how this employee could have could have worker could have found work in a stable labor environment and the only thing that that document he believed that under dr greg not his restrictions this guy could have worked in a light to medium job and with if you didn't look at doctors at the restrictions that dr kennedy they couldn't be december first if you're using a manifest if you're using a repetitive trauma theory possibly i guess december second probably would even be a better one but it's not it's a specific incident and all the evidence the the only thing in the record show is what employed testified to try to december first two thousand and four but if you look at doctor even since record he goes december second two thousand and four and his pain is already aggravated before that so