decision finding the petition or fail to prove that it's the same accident injury in the course of a rising out of in the course of his employment and failed to prove that a causal connection existed between his condition of ill being and his employment was against memphis where the evidence in the commission of that commission decision was not against the manifest where the evidence whether an injury arising out of it in the course of employment and whether cause of connection exists the question of fact to case clearly shows that petitioner did not use the jackhammer as often as he claimed that was to do work status reports as well as backed up by the testimony of petitioners for these opinions off of the history provided by petition and is the commission noted if there is from nation a petition or the history was not credible and thus petitioners treating physicians opinions were based on of it is nothing more than a harmless error that's that this is nuts because all there is sufficient other admissible evidence in the record to justify him fully supports the commission discussion of the entirety of the record and all the evidence they may consider that this is as it was in their decision or it furthermore in reference to furthermore that it's just a fact or a small one side discussion greta the commission as well as western hotel the industrial pollution which it was considered the court found that there was in this for here's what they went on to as i believe the correct reasoning is s referenced to dr allen it's a statement that i would argue that the effect of that is that it's harmless error that there is looking at the record that as a whole as the courts to in the cases that i've even mr armstrong the supervisor admitted that even for those four months i think it's at page one seventy four the record even those four once the whole car all over that mr pope did mr paul was working on other jobs other than the ones that mr armstrong was fits in with what everybody says and all of that to say you don't live in first you have a deception and then you have some period of time it goes past about two weeks that leads to that you then have a stroke so really well we're by work related traum all three or four over treaters said that his deception was caused by the top trauma doctor contact cramer's specifically said that jackhammer use is a recognize hammer dr kramer described it is as saying that you had the repetitive trauma from the use of the jack hammer was a cause and when he was hit in the head with a jackhammer in an office that was reasoning question with darkroom men could rely upon once in a report in formulating your opinion but the commission could not rely on what's in that report to establish the truth of the manners contained there  in order to formulate their opinion we're not suggesting that it comes in is that the report is accurate strom it's just reasonable to rely on it and so they have and then we judge the expert's opinion i don't think what he the histories that he provided were conflicting regarding drug use and smoking all of those were taken in consideration and that's what's the court relied upon when coming to their determination that petitioner was not credible even if you  opposing counsel makes it out to be that there is sufficient admissible evidence in the record that the commission relied upon the leave evaluated assessed as it is their job to come to their determination and that determination was that petition