dispute however apparently the claimant never filled out any forms and he filled out several forms between december and march of two thousand and eleven reporting the alleged work injury and apparently he has expertise and actually trains officers on how to report these incidents why didn't he indicate at any time for months that he was injured as a result of this domestic disturbance because of all the baggage with his prior bad back yes he's again correct or is this some new injury as a result of this and it it appears that he didn't think it was an injury because he ordered it repeatedly is not a word it's i'm  you asked that question because i believe that supports my position if you look at it with the petitioners on the petitioner is not in fact the petitioner is not a lawyer the petitioner does not know the pattern jury instruction fifteen on  after that m r i and that's a red herring to respond to concede as much as the gentleman and if you look at the record it was a little plastic slowly just moved a little and that's after he was diagnosed with the costly with the back injury that cause that we have known pietschmann to if you have a man who has a very bad back he said prior surgeries he's going to the chiropractor and ongoing basis and before the surgery the prior surgeon had injections of things clearly he's run away with a few chiral visits this one didn't go like this one progressed further rapidly up to the it couldn't get out of bed and he called a physician's assistant and answer her questions there was no question from the physician's assistant if this was related to work or not and also he took that form and the secretary for the village said that initial form was just copied over again and again it's every two weeks for off work so i don't see this impeachment the mere fact that somebody doesn't fill out the paperwork right now i've cited the whole line of cases i say it's my word to say it's a shock on approach but it does seem to happen with some frequency when there's a case like this when there's a case we have somebody with baggage where you have a lot of different paperwork forms and say something and isn't is not related to the real question is that something weight problem versus his current problem which is you know to compare the two when he's requiring narcotics actual therapy versus just some simple chiropractor i think it's apples and oranges you have an opinion based on reasonable rese reasonable degree of medical surgical certainly whether or not the treatment suggestion is due in whole or part to the event that he told you about i do have an opinion i think it was triggering or celebrated by this injury so he is giving a specific opinion and these tears on the top page of the brief there it says they correlated with the clinical history and he testified that it was not due to no apparent cause specifically so so we've known that he took the prior back surgeon was told about it didn't show up in these computerized records that we had trouble discerning throughout the first moment you saw that which state was what procedure ok and december of one and then all of the sudden it became december thirteenth in the commission didn't quite right feel the commission decision which went off on the other things therefore had their profit connection argument somewhat prejudiced but the point is a fine is against the manifest weight of the evidence but an opposite conclusion disappear here but we're not going to get into the to data mindset it is true that it got so bad he couldn't get out of bed on christmas day but it's also true that he woke up the next morning with back pain and it's also true that he went to the cairo even seen all along and it kept progressively worse  is overwhelming it's not just a case we've got a couple of forms filled out by by the claimant we had his coworker testify we had a supervisor testify we had a supervisor supervisor  testified and even more importantly we had this wonderful woman who was the administrative assistant to the chief who was doing the best she could for him by getting in his disability while he was off work and she testified they all testified he didn't have a working injury and they never said and she never reported to work injury until march of two thousand and eleven and it's not a question of filling out a couple of forms here there are a lot of the documentation that was placed into evidence related to medical records that he completed in his own handwriting were he said the onset of my symptoms worse december twenty five december twenty sixth two thousand and ten the thing that counsel didn't mention is after this incident on december eleventh i'm not saying he didn't arrest this gentleman but he continued to work he continued to perform his regular work duties for the next couple of weeks i mean he was only off work you know come the christmas holiday so it's not a question of i had an incident and i didn't think about it in the end i was having all these problems i i'm back at work i'm doing my regular job and then december twenty five december twenty sixth i have this problem and i see several different positions i see several different physical therapist and i tell them all that the onset of my symptoms is december twenty five december twenty sixth two thousand and ten and the first time i say anything to any doctor at the forms they filled out you look at dr mae as next records and they're all consistent with an insidious onset they're all consistent with an onset december twenty five two thousand and ten if you look at dr bernstein's report which the commission specifically relies on are you compared to dr cloud was reporting the most important thing that dr kolob admits on cross examination is you know what when i look at the medical records they're not consistent with what the claimant gave me as a history and i base my opinion on causation based on what the claimant told me a clearly the medical records are inconsistent when you when you're faced with that volume of conflicting evidence i submit to you that the commission was continued to see the chiropractor on the fifteenth the seventeenth of the twenty and then it was on the safe continually work to when he worked for a week in between the scene of the congress on the symptoms are getting worse so i don't think that supports the  initial statements from medical personnel and certainly and since in the subs subsequent statements they do generally reflect on credibility but not here because of the situation it's the facts and the evidence of the medical and he didn't tell the told so all those forms go away and then finally the firking case which also points out the dharma he can't take the quantum tade level of proof that is demanded by the commission as to the repetitive nature of the employment there and require there and a much higher level when the commission wanted to decide oh it was his home remodeling project so you have to commission the commission further he reversed the commission and said was there was sufficient evidence in the record to establish that it was against the manifest where the evidence and specifically because they said there was too much  proof or there was a different standard the commission was using a different standard on page thirteen of my brief ok the first case it was a current bonus and that was the night by the commish the medical evidence was a little less than perfect but the petitioners got a bad back and we do have a doctor's opinion say bernstein such as it is saying oh no causal connection you know there's no right answer to these cases well there isn't one of the other way he would have been arguing  of cases and that's when the problem of course for the family look through a busy administrative record and see just what is in there when you sift through and if you sift through this i think what you'll see is bernstein