court of plain county and confirmed the decision of the workers compensation commission previously entered here in i had the privilege of a couple of years ago of appearing before this panel where i represent claimant walter but to zap against wal mart the case was alluded to earlier in that case obviously some issues were different but as i've preparing for a good argument and a brief filed before this court kept coming to the conclusion in my head this case has already been decided by internet interstate scaffold and that's all to millie how that the two zach case came out as i was preparing for the briefs and arguments before  this court today it's like deja vu all over again in my mind i could be wrong that you mr coleman will point out why but i think this case was literally decided by justice harris's decision in cornbelt i think the facts we're here today situation involving an employee with a preexisting condition which nobody disputes there was an an accident which is undisputed in this case as in cornell subsequent treatment and then you shoes as a arose as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish causal connection under the law the employer in cornbelt as it was done here advice with transportation before the supreme court argued two things the commission got it wrong as a matter of law and their decision was against the manifest weight of the albums in the commission decision here in as in cornball the commission utilized the chain of events theory to establish or to confer if there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to show causal connection the employer here based on whatever their condition was whatever the condition may and then prior to the action and it is nothing compared to when even though it may be very well be a condition where suffers from some type  conditions involving the same area of the body involving the same molds of treatment in this case the employer is saying we've got significant preexisting conditions involving the same area the body and involving the same  she went to see the doctor in march two thousand and thirteen the doctor said let's do some x rays and maybe we'll figure out if we're going to do a surgery that surgery was never scheduled it was never performed what did happen was miss schroeder then went got recertified be a truck driver passed the d o t physics passed a physical that was required of her by the respondents with transportation at that time she was not under physical any limitations  fifteen minute grace and she performed those job duties without incident for the next seven months swip produce no witnesses who testified in arbitration that ms schroeder's back condition any way impacted on her ability to perform those job duties going back cornbelt one of the key things that this court looked out was we knew we had pyro before and we've got cairo afterwords but this court found that there was bishop medical evidence  got a woman who were seven months for being over the road truck driver eighteen wheeler dr yasbeck testified five four of that accident december nineteenth two thousand and thirteen is conceivable she could have got driving the truck there's no evidence she would have had to have the surgery but instead here's what we know she ends up in the emergency room they did it prescribe hydrocodone they take her off to work she gets in to see ya spock is soon as she can and what's condition had come back to where it was before we wouldn't be here today that's a temporary occupation this aggravation is never in your permission and it never ended to the point that doing the surgery  i believe that the commission correct levy rejected the our peers finding that fact i believe there is sufficient evidence if not such as i've outlined here that the manifest weight good was also here who is also had the responsibility to assess the credibility of the witnesses which did you found the schroder credible swift is attacked or credibility for various reasons maybe some of them founded some not believe that in its brief swift did not even address the cornbelt decision which i think is so critical in this analysis and once again i would just ask that this isn't the worker's compensation commission from transportation in this case and this case is an extraordinary it's extraordinary because we know exactly what and hatch roaders condition was prior to this accident she went to the  everything we're not attacking her credibility she did that that's a that she did not disclose she was seeing a doctor yes she did not disclose her prior huge huge search she did not disclose that she had severe done again she has an x ray done being done by her doctor three hours back and ultimately her surgeon dr yes there are no changes not only are the radiological films the same but her complaints of pain before and after the accident are the same and then in april twenty fourth when dr yes back performs the fusion surgery at all five us one that he intended to do before she went off and reapplied for work and got hired he fixes that we see the radiological films on that her back has been repaired at that point she still has the same complaint of pain how can that possibly be how could that possibly be related to her back it's consistent before the accident after the accident after the fusion surgery we submit that clearly all along her issues were primarily with her fibro myalgia the very reason she was off work to begin with and receiving social security disability benefits that's why after dr e aspect does the surgery she says she feels worse but in any event we can set that aside and we can say just look at the fact that there's no proof submitted about fibromyalgia and whether that's the cause of the pain we don't know i submit that was she presented zero of it's not medical or even her own testimony but looking just strictly at the medical it's very clear based on the m r i s and the x rays and or subject of complaints again there were no change i'd be happy to take on the cornbelt case because it has never been our position that the chain of events and alice's is in a place or as a matter of wall in an instance where there's a preexisting disability it is our position that you cannot apply that in a case like this for two reasons one there hasn't been a change before and after the accident secondly i think this is key the task if you look at it talks about  disability that occurs after the accident and so the disability before and after the accident is setting aside the fact that it's the same but it's a degenerative condition i think the nature of the injury is also important as to whether the chain of events analysis can be applied because by definition when you have a degenerative condition it's going to get worse so how do you separate whether somebody is worse after an accident whether it's because of the so i so i think that that the fact that afterward she was willing to do it at that point time in chief said she was beforehand too that's why they were trying to schedule it but but that's really her women at that point in time more than the doctor's direct they were trying to find this woman to schedule it that the record is very clear about that but they couldn't find her to schedule that operation so it never occurred and then she reappears than in early twenty fourteen after the accident and and they immediately proceed and do the work up on her what your complaints of pain she's had an eight what was she last time he saw her she was at an eight they do an m r i they do an x ray no change there 's no objective difference there's no subjective difference here now one thing that i think is important to point out in this case is the commission's findings two are just flat wrong they said that her treatment ended in march of twenty thirty that's not accurate dr e as fact had just seen her and and this roeder and dr e as a fact had agreed surgery was going to be done and it was being scheduled when she disappear treatment was moving forward it had not ended she may have went off and started driving a truck but she was still under his care at that point in time they were affirmatively trying to contact her to schedule that operation that huge in surgery and then secondly i would submit they they took the chain of events fast and they modified they said well what what it means is you have to be in a state of relative good health before the accident while not even sure what that means i don't think it can apply think it becomes dysfunctional when you're dealing with a degenerative condition like mage schroeder but that's just openly modifying helen oil on i think destroys any value circumstantial which well i think my best answer to that question is that the test articulated by the supreme court forty years ago now where where they said it's sure i get it right they said it's a previous condition of good health doesn't have to be perfect but it has to be good health and i would submit it you can have for example and eat it too but if that injury is to the point where it's static meaning it's not going to get worse it's not be generative you can still buy the chain of events analysis it would make sense there however i would say the nature of the injury is the generative and by definition is going to get worse i don't think it works and th both the the cornbelt case and the case before it believe it was pierce maybe there was another case cited back in the mid ninety's that also applied the chain of events status to create this thing injury chain of events if it was in charge and there's no i'm saying in the absence of medical testimony i think just apply and that's what was if you just have a chain of events testimony that's not sufficient case but i'm also pointing out setting that aside i think there's a problem with applying the chain of events analysis where there's a deterioration in the condition such that a change later is not a certainly indicative of a work accident and that that accident made things worse in some fashion and so your argument is they didn't do that because there's no work her condition oddly enough although she had a degenerative condition between when she saw yes back in march of thirteen and then again in january fourteenth had not changed the arm our eyes the x rays they don't lie and she too reported the same amount of pain same senators the surgery she had done your of twenty fourteen was the very same surgery that was being planned an attempt at the speech scheduled for her back in april and may of twenty thirty who could have been so rich that's absolutely right under the right records and miss schroeder's own testimony and again we would submit that there are there there truly is an eight hundred pound gorilla in this courtroom in this case which is the fibro my alto which is i don't know how else to explain and none of the doctors have opined but how how she could have the complaints after having the fusion surgery it could not have been her back at that time and those from points were the same consistent complaints as had existed all law and that i would submit there's a potential no other cause out there that has to be discounted and it was that's it that's a failure proof in this case and so therefore i think judge  i don't know what judge lawrence brothers three sons order i can make do doesn't say anything so i'm not sure what i wouldn't see found in support of mr holmes position or why the chain of events theory was an applicable surgery it's not life threatening you don't get your replaced well in this case this roeder was fully capable of doing her job for swift until this accident it's celery to do it aggravated and there i once again i'm getting lost maybe it's just