the pinions of dr malik and that reason is not supported by the record in the rosen what the what the reason for disregarding dr mouse opinion that the arbitrator gave in the commission of firm was that on page seventy five of his transcript he stated that his so e the sole basis for his opinion was the mishap statement to him page seventy five his deposition does not contain that statement and nowhere else in his deposition or the record does that contain either testified that his opinions were based on his review of medical records and deposition transcripts his examination in history from mishap statistics regarding the treatment of general conditions and his experiences in neurosurgeon treating patients indicated that his us testimony was based on one basis and his testimony instead demonstrates that he had multiple bases the commission also criticized dr malloch for not reviewing mishaps original i when in fact the record again specifically demonstrates that he did review the report of that m r i although obviously it is the role of the commission to resolve the disputed questions of fact the commission's decision must be based on actual facts in the record here the commission gave specific instances for why they rejected dr mousa and in but those bases do not find any support of the record for that reason the decisions be reversed in total or at a minimum remanded  the commission so that they can explain their basis similarly the commission did not address at all the argument that the alternative argument that mishaps injury was caused by repetitive trauma done disputed evidence in the record is that mishap worked as a traffic aide at midway airport she did so for fourteen years her job required her to stand and walk for eight to twelve hours a day unless she was on a break  and ship to our current condition i don't see that as any kind of a fudge factor whatsoever well with don nelson testified your honor and it's it's in the supplemental record at ten twenty two ten twenty one he said that back problems tend to be say that i believe he testified that he didn't believe the accident was related to her current condition but not that it was her work to vs he testified that he had a a dilemma any problem explaining whether her work activities contributed because in his view that had to be the only factor a reading of his testimony reveals that in his mind you're working two bodies could only be a cause for back problems it was the sole cause and that's obviously not  sorry your honor having read this he had not your honor and if you'd like to direct him to do so that may be beneficial in the future but that's that's one of the reading of his testimony reveals is that he in or in the alternative to remand the commission so that they can specifically address that argument again i was the deference is owed to the commission's decision but they need to issue a decision on the issues and the need to have that decision be based on time it got to the one thousand b that was tried nor did the city dispute that there was a low back problem that was related to the accident so there's certainly some permanency that would have to be decided on remand at a minimum even putting those two issues aside the manifest weight of the evidence still suggests that the commission's decision is in error there was no evidence that mishap had any little back problems prior to her accident on the job there is no dispute accident or her she began the complaints of her back pain began to be documented as her second visit to mercy works dr nelson testified that her two thousand and seven m r i and her two thousand and nine m r i were similar they that she had back problems since the motor vehicle accident there was no testimony by any of mishaps coworkers of supervisors that she did not experience problems when she did return to work i was who did the failure to produce that testimony should opinion as to what they cause of that current condition was he never testified as to how to of trauma nor would he have been able to give a valid repetitive trauma opinion because he believed she worked as an air traffic controller and not as a lower extremity so it would be july tenth two thousand is when she was released return to work her next medical treatment was in january and her testimony was that although she was working during that time she was experiencing difficulty to substitute their opinion for the commissions on medical issues and that's what this case is the other thing i learned it was a longer argument necessarily  counsel spend a lot of time telling you what support said miss hates case he didn't spend a lot of time telling q one supports the that's the last time she complained of low back pain until two thousand and nine she continued to treat with dr nelson because the burning august september october all the way up through  two thousand and eight without another mention of low back pain she gets released to return to work on july tenth two thousand and eight she says good as she's going to get no mention again of low back but she returned to complaining about me pain and back pain during this whole two years where there are i'm sorry not to years twenty two months where she was than no records to conclude that the condition in two thousand and nine was not related to the original incident and possibly something else the normal degenerative process of course but going beyond that we also have d dr nelson is a pinion was that he did not believe her current condition was related to the two thousand her work in two thousand and nine when he also did not believe her condition after june twenty eighth two thousand and seven was related march second two thousand and seven there was no subsequent accident by there was medical testimony indicating the condition was not possibly related to that accident could that subsequent work if it really was repetitive trauma led to another claim yes there wasn't anything else there for the commission to decide other then what it was going on in two thousand and nine is not related to the only application for adjustment in the claim that we have on  your is that i think the issue with distilling dr nelson's testimony is because there's two issues the kind of hit conflated and one is a specific trauma one is a repetitive trauma and dr nelson specific testimony and it's in the record well your honor that that was the very first point that i asked you to to to address the specific finding the doctor mailed is not credible relates to the fact that supposedly his sole basis was a statement from ms that's not true i'm reading c anything well your honor put there's a couple issues there number one specifically again the question says he didn't review the june two thousand and seven m r i yes he did the only evidence is the record is that he said he did it simply so in those other records those are the he did not review those records that is true but you have to look at the commission's decision in total he did review the two thousand and seven m r i mississippi again since given by a technician was that he made a statement on page seventy five his deposition that that his sole basis was the statement from mishap that's not supported by the record in terms of the treatment date your honor i apologize where i have indicated it is january fourth two thousand and nine  the record will bear out what the writer gears up to she first saw him on november the fourth two thousand and nine is what the record bears out sent to him by your off yes you are absolutely absolutely she she was originally seen by surgery but it's it's for those reasons because the commission's decision just regarding dr malicorne erit i think a reversal or a minimum or remand to reconsider its is warranted because plane evidence in the record is that she did he did review that two thousand and seven m r i the plan evidence the record is that he did not give his opinion based on one sole basis and so certainly the commission's decision is entitle to