is whether the commission followed the analysis set forth in the supreme court says pro decision in arriving at its conclusion insists pro the supreme court gave three criteria to evaluate and analyze a case involving a preexisting condition first a commission has to determine whether there was an accidental injury arising out of the implant we have that here that's not contested the second issue is to determine whether the accident accelerated or aggravated the preexisting condition and then finally the third is to determine whether that preexisting condition alone  subsequent injury in this case the facts i will briefly go through the petitioner was a forty four year old iron worker did work for the respondent for about a year prior to this he testified that he had never he had not received any medical care for the left knee getting this time from work due to the left knee and he was able to perform all aspects of his job so on the date of accident august seventh a protection bar going across a bit about waist level he made the decision to grab onto that are swing his feet underneath it and land on the ground below to do something his explanation was i'm working fast for the man that's accident here that the claimant would require additional left knee surgery that he would in the future of eventually need the replacement surgery yes but that's not a we're not claiming that he needs knee replacement surgery as result of this injury that is not a part of this and i'm sorry to interrupt you yes but even a preliminary for that can you tell us what it is that you're suggesting the standard of review should be here in this what is it you've indicated that the commission basically mis apply in the first case i think if there's a question of to declaim and show the proper elements of damage to have a compensable cause of action that's an issue of law and that would entitle disport to make it to nova review but even if you disagree with me there if we look at the analysis to commission made they indicated that the claimant established a temporary condition i think that that can be defeated on a manifest weight issue but a minute as to a question relative with an iron workers probably one of the more physically demanding jobs that are out there he was able to perform that job for four and a half years prior to this accident perform all aspects of the job and in the year prior to the accident do that work for the respondent did he have a need that needed help there was going to eventually need surgery yes he did there's no question about that he had a preexisting condition with respect to the need but she was stable cole indicated in his records on two of the three occasions you saw the claimant that he had an exacerbation of a prior condition our crime of fish a case on whether or not they had a preexisting condition was aggravated and cause change was dr paul that occupational specialist who found that the claimants current condition of ill being true years after the accident was presently related to that accident and as a result of that accident he needed ongoing medical care evaluation by a orthopedic surgeon and possible injections force chronic pain dr cole opined that as a result of the injury he had acute and chronic pain and soon the vitus the claimant's testimony bears this out and the commission and the arbitrator both found that the commission the petition was a credible witness he testified to the following things  unlike cre accident post accident his left knee got worse over the course of the day after he did his as he did his activities he had difficulty sleeping at night due to the left knee pain which was not atrophy in that like prior there's no indication where that atrophy was or what it was in relation to but what the claimant testified to and he was found to be credible was i noticed a difference that i didn't notice before now the leg w accident we're firm on your word of medical we take away the t t d for other reasons but we changed the causal connection opinion what we find is that the only a temporary aggravation that's not possible because our prime official case had no evidence whatsoever that there was a temporary a provision the only evidence on the record that there was a temporary aggravation was from dr rob the employer's expert dr robb's opinion was accorded little weight by the arbitrator and the reason being he never evaluated the claimant he just reviewed medical records after the fact and  his conclusions now the commission doesn't then turn around and say we now adopt dr rods opinion and we find there's a temporary provision there's there's no reason set forth whatsoever they just say we view the evidence differently but the evidence that the commission would be viewing would be the other dence of our crime aphasia case dr cole and dr cole and neither one of them indicated that there was a temporary aggravation that this was only a temporary condition in fact dr cole was saying two and a half years after the accident this gentleman still needs medical care for the chronic now chronic pain that was caused by th so the commission's decision is both against the manifest weight of the evidence but i'm also arguing that if we just took the fiscal framework and decided these cases within that framework took the facts and applied it to that analysis these decisions would be much clearer and we would know where they're coming from instead what you've got is a decision where they say we find it differently and you're forced to struggle to try to determine will why is it different what did you base that on there rod's opinion should be accorded little weight there was no finding by the commission that that decision should be changed they if they agreed with the credibility findings of the arbitrator they specifically say that they don't is bad enough to overcome a manifest weight standard is there you've got an opinion that the commission for the most part disregard not totally disregarded but basically said we're really not going to take his opinion into account in making our decision if  entire basis that we're forced to conclude that they must have been relying on my argument if that doesn't meet the met then i meet the manifest weight standard that the evidence clearly shows that an aggravation did take opinion was accorded little weight by the commission well i don't know that it's true the commission says in robson view any need treatment petition required after february fourteenth twenty away would be related to the n who progression of  here the commission disability they see that in the commission's view the accident resulted in only a temporary aggravation but when did that condition become difficult that you have a temporary condition where d who is the last court doctor the last physician to see the claimant two years after the date of accident in june of two thousand and nine says this is not a temporary condition it's a permanent condition there's no doubt if the if we would have more long at the commission's decision that it's temporary is predicated on its conclusion that his condition returned to baseline you know that as of february ok so you know if he did not return to baseline if where he was in february of two thousand and eight or at the time of the hearing which is actually what's and speed here was not baseline then i submit to you no you would have to go to february eighteenth because his condition credible clearly the commission says it's very probable that the petitioner was kept awake at night as a result of left knee pain following this injury and he was not prior had been recommended for a knee replacement head injections and visits playoffs as a commission and i believe maybe even the doctors who call them yet next in the work and while we may not like it we accepted the commission's finding on that issue event and he added this preexisting condition therefore there's something to be quite but what it is become a shift problems to do that is decide whether the arbitrator got it right and whether or not there's an aggravation that is ongoing credibility and therefore find das and despite all these very same consistencies the way they view the evidence including the medical opinions including the testimony including everything said before that is we only have a under strict work he didn't need a further herit that point he could take a poll on about his life as he could tolerate in the petition did he went back to work as an ironworker that's in the record  were after dr cole released him to work as an ironworker the commission obviously didn't give a weight to dr close opinion because they didn't agree with him they didn't specifically state that but it can be  d rather easily from their findings it's just a difference as to how they viewed the evidence on causation they found a temporary aggravation and therefore no permanency even though it you employees argument that in fact we have some type of causal connection between the condition and the accident that goes past that date it's still the commission  determine what the permanency is and he hasn't shown bit the commission's decision on hundred c of the fact that thirty determined there is no permanent seat there is beyond the manifest way to be evidence again he's an ironworker he's back full duty the commission did like him the current condition of the claimant to the flare ups that he had had previously as counsel and indicated there's a fundamental difference however in the previous flare ups that he had in two thousand and five and two thousand six where attended by either a single visit to an emergency room or one to two visits follow up with a physician this was not one of those flare ups this was the claim it was under medical care of his physicians for six months there was a claim by one of the physicians that he needed to have knee replacement surgery now as a result of this injury get undergone injections he went underwent a month and a half of physical therapy and the condition changed in terms of what he was dealing with after this accident occurred which was going to have an impact on his future earning ability the pain progressively getting worse during the course of the day impacting his ability to sleep at night those are all issues of permanency that clearly show that there was a change in the condition even if you were to accept the commission's decision that there was and the permanency awarded by the arbitrator ten percent loss of the leg i would submit to you would be an appropriate award even under the circumstances of finding that it was a term in a temporary condition or for how can a these cases need to be decided all of this format by applying that format to the facts the commission didn't do this year counsel is saying we can infer the commission found this we're guessing what the commission had to do rea decision back saying well they had to have adopted rob in order to get to where they wanted to but they don't say that i would encourage you to use this decision is an opportunity to remind the commission let's follow the legal framework