tire related to benefits paid to mr cooke while he was off work and the commissions awarded penalties the standard of beauty with regard to the issue of sation and i'm just limiting my arguments of causation and penalties and and or one pay if there time is whether or not the commission by pulsation was against the manifest weight of the evidence as i stated earlier on may eleventh mr bell down a set of stairs at work the initial reports regarding after he was released from the hospital he returned to the plant and it's recommended to see a doctor filer but since he was on the pale he saw a nurse by the name of lisa thompson at that visit he stated he fell down the stairs and landed on his left knee hitting the concrete and his complaints were good extension stability to skinless impact the examination further rebuilt nowhere ias of discomfort no clinical a fusion and no very costly based on the examination and m r i dr farmer diagnos on the left knee and recommended surgery no treatment was recommended for the employees right knee surgery was performed two weeks after the surgery now month and a half after the accident mr cook began expressing complaints regarding his right knee to follow up  that overrode the pain that he might have had his right right while moving forward through the treatment and the m r i is eventually performed and on august twenty second doctor by bomber then diagnosis a media minister which is the exact same injury found on the left m is his opinion that the incident occurred in the work accident because he was advised by this that he lay it on both knees at the bottom of the stairs which was different from everything that had been said prior to that time the interesting part about dr boltz he was deposed on january twelfth and at that time he confirmed that the initial medical records following the work accident didn't reveal any swelling this comfort or abnormal findings in the right knee and then testified that typically he would expect evidence the arbitrator and the commission both found that the employ sustained an injury to his right name and continental tire has controverted this finding to be against the man best way to the evidence to the fact that all of the treatment rendered up until june was for the left there is no sign of any injury to his right leg at any of the reports any other records of the hospitals any of the doctors the star up until jim has put the report on there's opinion or when there is conflicting medical opinions penalties ordinarily or not imposed on the relevant question is whether the employer's reliance on hung up was effectively reasonable under the circumstances and the employer actually fair's the burden of showing that it had a reasonable the place justified in this case the commission in its decision specifically found that the employer's denial of the right was justifiable based on its reliance on doctor route they specifically stated respondents reliance he needs treatment for his right and like me right now we didn't think was possibly connected but our own doctor said that he did the inspection which would imply that no further medical treatment was necessary so based on the case law that explains why penalties are or without addressing the fact that there was a credit granted so i don't think you can award penalties on the amount that may have been paid and was certainly right that it with regard to t v benefits which the record clearly shows what was  there and medical expenses no one but super help pay it's our position that the penalties attorneys fees should never have been awarded in the first place because we don't think the causation was ever there between the rightly and the work allows a credit to the employer for amounts paid to the employee from the group health think the issue from what i've seen from looking at mr crosby as well as our own is paid to the employee surgery on that knee in june and clearly whatever condition was on the original m r i in may was not going to still be the issue in september when he's saying two months of surgery the issue with the m r i had to do  and what counsel basically saying is that because he wouldn't put any restrictions on on this patient in september with regards to the left knee that you can infer from that that ralph was also giving the opinion that there was no medical necessity under section eight a for continuing medical a few can and for restrictions equal for the better or the light of two treating physician saying that he needs further strengthening of his left  treatment if he did that then under the rules governing practice once they've accepted responsibility for federal they have a duty to explain in writing at the earliest moment why they're now they're saying well we defeated causation and basically they want you to retry the facts that we've defeated causation as to the rights of the penalties don't apply but  eighty's it was caused by a contra lateral imbalance by him being the only bearing on this but they all say he needs treatment and he was prescribed physical therapy throughout the period of time as to the credit one i don't think it's an issue well i think it it's fact it's fact based and that in light of what happened in these particular circumstance thinks that should be interpreted but he did receive the therapy dr balmer recommended therapy went into physical therapy and he continued in physical therapy until the end of august after august there were no further think it is very late august and like the twenty six twenty eight where there is no treatment rendered for mr cripps let me and then suddenly you know four months later we now need to treat it again even though nobody has seen him and there is nothing happened and by the way now we have this right knee problem that really could not have occurred during the accident based on the family nation from dr bach like i said it's our position that they are they should finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence