in this case it is our position that not only is the confirmed decision of the commission against manifest weight the evidence in certain respects but there is actually no evidence to support some of the of the commission which actually were the arbitrators for initially there's no evidence to support any finding other than the petitioner was permanently in totally disabled as a result of his work whatever is their support as a vision about being had anything to do with this alleged incident well i'm not particularly concerned about that initial accident because the second accident was the one that really precipitated all the treatment and all of the subsequent disability took an appeal on the february one as well that did not i did ok so now you're turning our attention to the may you're not going to further the argument of a lack of evidence on and has a history of need for so the commission finds that with regard to that he can play with didn't prove that it was causally connected that there was no finding of the cause of connection to his condition of was only for fifty percent meant as a whole there were there was numerous testimony medical testimony petitioner is permanently and totally disabled as a result of that accident respondent didn't provide any evidence whatsoever also also dr sweeney but all of those doctors said this man is permanently and totally disabled they were all all of them warm russian you know with regard to that issue though based upon his knee injuries as well as testified well with respect to the knee injury that would confide in him too so in theory work on his work was sedentary basically although he did a fair amount of traveling basically was that he was an executive you did sedentary work dr testified that the effects of the neck injury were such he couldn't hold his head up more than a couple of hours he had all kinds of problems pain is taking all kinds of pain medication very high alone would that cause him to be permanently and totally disabled or words to that effect and that's correct that's the that's the word that was the causal connection opinion given by the doctors that they may thirty first accident itself was the cause mobility that's right but i believe that if you understand what i understand in the testimony that is the when it was if you consider that the knee injury wasn't work related which i think there's a problem there which i expressed and discussed my reasons over even if you consider that you still would have been that the navy wasn't permanently and totally disabled that confronting the sedentary work would cause you to be permanently totally disabled a neck injury and respondent never presented any evidence whatsoever to address that or to rebut the opinion you know he held he was working with the need before he got the neck injury and if there's over two years after the neck injury before he had any further need of treatment right so so so the knee was added to the neck injury down the road well he had three surgeries for  knee and then he also had and that was i think it might be right as far as he didn't ever actually have any treatment until you know a couple years after this accident no no treatment to the knee and he also only had another knee replacement job you still disabled and respondent put him on disability and as a matter back in october of ninety ninety six he was trying to keep on working they said you just can't do it and they put him on disability so  that's one position that i have then also the award for t t d benefits was only was twelve weeks and it was prob weeks from the date of the next surgery there's no evidence in the record to support that that was the only period that he was disabled and there's also per two years before that since one nine hundred ninety six based on not only his own his own doctor but the responders so position so that's not supported by the record also that the respondent i mean scuse me the medical bill that was a fifteen hundred page exhibit right and i mean it was it was fifteen hundred page exhibit a large group of medical bills some we were doctors who treated but if the arbitrator looked at the records he could easily see which one where for the cervical spine which ones are were for the knee because we i mean i don't we didn't second i didn't separate it as to you know which is for by section twelve i think it certainly is given the authority to support that i don't know why it would be any different from any other well on its face it and it deals with physical examinations about two months after the trial began so i did i don't think that would be admissible either although as i didn't say in my brief i think it was very favorable dr hopkinson was very table to fish so i don't see hey never sent to me but as this case tried in three days over a period of more than two years well i think because the respondent kept requesting continuances for various reasons which i didn't think were legitimate respondent kept requesting continuances they had a couple of dates when they were going to bring in dr kornblut to testify and for one reason or another it didn't show up then they wanted more continuances because they said he wanted to bring in witnesses you never brought  causal connection because of what people eat are what's represented the medical records complaining of the hyper extension or a question of any as well as a significant gap in treatment from the time of the occurrence hundred sixty as well as the fact that he had a significant preexisting condition and there is evidence to suggest that he was going to need the replacements or well they were there was evidence the city of chicago case in particular dr slacks a report in that trial had started testimony by titian or then dr formulated the record that was provided well in advance of him testifying case so there was no surprise more prejudice respect to that system and with respect to the to the findings of the arbitrator in the commission as very recently i think that the issue surprise may be essential to the question of whether there would be a problem with the admission of darkness or unless wreckers interview reporters testimony because obviously when the case  based on what was known at the time the trial began i think in the city of chicago case this court premised that decision on on that issue so if if there's a report that isn't him in existence when the trial begins that certainly shouldn't be any different than withholding report that already is an existence of the time the trial begins when there's a records review or a