statutory there's nothing in one thousand eight that prevents you from recovering from a body part you know nineteen age that wasn't awarded in a in the original proceeding we also however i felt that if the commission had not make and what i can not made an error was that they may have ruled differently on that testimony because he testified that his condition was the same but quote even worse now you're talking about a hispanic person here and you have the difficulty with the translation difference i'm a medical expenses there's really nothing judge i just couldn't hear you've got to go over dr younger yet to find the claimant had a herniated disk that was related to the work accident in the claimant's favor correct correct then the employer has doctors all with who testifies to the opposite conclusion does not believe the back problem is related to the way of the accident so where is the how do you meet the standard that the finding is you know country of the manifest weight of the evidence well it's our position that had that commission rule that not made the mistake of law that you couldn't recover we believe their decision on that issue might be different in other words had they concluded that he could recover for the battle because if you read their decision they're really saying that it's based upon him back if he can't recover from the two different body parts i think the it's kind of an incidental finding that you know what that word when in fact the testimony is that it was the word ok to taking your logic a little bit further does it preclude us from finding in favor of the commission of any basis in the record so would you we gave some thought to this argument it is sort of creative there that council is made sort of a lot of the case kind of argument that we could have developed here the gist of it which would have been that because the commission did not find disability with regard to the will back that that was a law the case and therefore would have been precluded from making an award for a little bit here but we declined to do so i mean it's kind of a jazzy issue and i think i'm going to be before this court maybe sometime in the future of the whole if look reveals maybe to argue such an issue but it's not necessary to argue that here plus it's a little vague in the sense that the commission nearly did not make an award for the back of the commission was aware of the back because there was a history of back complaints mild black back pain generalized pain prior to the original arbitration perce but since the commission found that the man had no discernible lumbar or cervical complaints at trial nor ward was given a what do you make of his argument because it to another of argument in this particular case with the facts we have because it's really not certain what the commission did with the lower back the first go around one could argue that by making norwood finding whatsoever with regard to the lower back that that was exclude yours truly would rather have something a little bit more specific before making the law the case argument but it's not necessary in any event because there's plenty of evidence upon which the commission could have relied dr youngers opinion was not adopted they also held that whatever his low back condition was at the time of the original arbitration that there was no material change which there really wasn't his complaints were fundamentally the same the commission that those two floors could not receive an award for his role back because he did not receive one initially you will not find that in the decision therefore the commission was