a question of fact and presents the difficult burden to overcome you also have some serious credibility issues to address don't you mean that the commission quite candidly really find your client was not part of the commission did find an issue on credibility due to mistakes in the commission's reasoning in their failure to consider all the evidence in the record to calls into question their finding regarding the petitioner's credibility on the issue specifically the commission's failure to consider all of the evidence it's finding that no work injury was reported to any medical doctors until approximately august twenty third two thousand and six is incorrect and it's just not true in the record in fact if the commission would have considered all of the evidence the commission would have found that on january time off of work he attempts to open up a worker's compensation claim with a supervisor only to be told too late you can make it a comp a spider for your benefit will wait until the winter months will be off you can get unemployment you can recover from your surgery that will take you back to work well when considering everything in this context including the fact that you know he had the conversations with his boss that he wanted to put off the surgery wait till he was laid off and it wasn't until he was not allowed to come back to work while he was recovering from his that he attempted to talk to his union talk to an attorney at that point it is i believe august twenty third to excuse me july eleventh two thousand and six when the response alleging willis is the first that we've ever heard of a work accident and that's that's the reason why the missing record which was not considered is so important because the respondent will have you believe that the first day will work actually it was july eleventh two thousand and six which was following the surgery in january when he talked to his union representative he talked to an attorney in the attorneys the one that called the respondent and said  chronic pain is writing cleary due to injury that he sustained earlier last year possibly at work well it's the best case scenario is a doctor seven months after the accident said it's possible he sustained an injury at work and the term possible would be extremely important if we were here arguing cause causal connection i can alex that but we're not talking about causal connection in the term possibly we're talking about credibility in reporting has got to solve the problem and it's the commission and the dissenting commissioner noted that the majority of decision was clearly and unfortunately against the manifest weight of the evidence that was based on their failure to consider all the evidence and later on after he couldn't come back to work now simply stated as the look and feel case indicated it's simply not fair to hold him to that standard journeymen carpenter who's never had a workers compensation case before in his twenty eight years so i know well yeah i guess i need to tell them that i did injure myself it happened at work so when you actually review all of the know me and look in bill where we are from the commissioner we were it was in a firm certain because it's manifest when they get to choose and if they don't put have beaten deal on the fact that it was reported for fifteen months weekend but when they put a great deal on the it say that's one of the factors they're considering we can't ignore and certainly documentation disputes is he was her this case is where was he her bits with this case is about i don't think there's any argument here that he didn't have an injury he was treated for an injury questions were going to happen until the point where he had surgery and happened about a year ago once again given the record as a whole it's unfair to hold him to that standard to say my injury happened on may third two thousand and five it was a work related injury here's exactly how it happened here's why it arises occurred in the course of my employment when you consider all the resident evidence as a whole which corroborates his testimony and which was not considered by the commission specifically that missing record seven months prior to their finding which they indicated in their decision was the  persuasive and both it's clear that they did not consider all the evidence in the record that they should have for the following reasons compelling respectfully request that the side of the court reversed decision the circuit court which affirm that there's a lot of manifest week to consider a lot of the things that you've already pointed out during argument today e he wasn't injured at all i don't know that he was necessarily aware of the fact of what was going on but i think that dr vigors testimony calls into question whether there was an actual condition that he operated on and i think  before i'd like to know where i mean i understand that the people blame surgery on events in the events that cause the need for the surgery but people actually having surgery i'm on a healthy body parts just of course worker's comp we did we have as happened in even in my career as as an attorney i can tell you i've had clients asked me if their decision and it would have been credibility it would have been his credibility and absolutely so we don't want to get off as we talked all morning about speculation and conjecture about phantom operations your argument should be very simple it is very sad way commission didn't believe him saw he didn't know who his supervisor was at the time and the the other factor that goes against his credibility that i don't think the commission cited i think is important is that he filed a claim for unemployment about three months after this alleged accident happened while he was working on the payroll records that were evidence showed that he was working full time and claiming unemployment the same time which also will and i will be brief the commission did not make any determination regarding notice because i never got that part simply said no accident occurred that's the issue before you today and if if if all the evidence is taken as a whole including the fact that these conversations  possible too late by the comp case for us lay off have your surgery come back to work and then he was stuck in a precarious situation trying to prove a case back to actively that everything is completely consistent and believable along the boards all the medical documentation all the witnesses testimony cheerleaders team for example who is the secretary who says she's in charge of reporting these cases the company said this is the first i've heard of it will he didn't report it to her of course this is the first he said he talked to his supervisor on the scen