using the budget for analysis just to cite yes but i think that is the fair i don't think there's any basis in the record for that finding both financially and medically factually this guy was our position isn't that he was fusion on one forty five thirteen he said fusions on necessary has the sneezing a bad everything changes about his symptoms everything changes about his treatment and now he needs an m r i now we need surgery van but we can reproduce the records why he was doing why all of this one was involved and he says by he misses it in a couple different records one he says that by taking out the laminate the performed that is causing the yes the necessity for the fusion so i don't know what the i don't know what the i don't know how the commission there's no basis for that decision there's no medical opinion for that decision the only way the only way you five was a new finding and the petitioners need for surgery was not connected back to the work accident so our position is that there is no medical testimony in this record to support is related so i think the commission their decision before they made their findings they go through this well stammers the chain of events and they go through all the cases about intervening cause i don't know how you can read their language and then come up with the new findings after the sneezing incident and cite everything they did not find that this was an intervening accident and specifically the new findings being why the four or five did this and they t i don't disagree i think i think that that's my position why i'm saying he wasn't ever mine and he wasn't he wasn't one hundred percent cured but you were sort of portraying that he was pretty much a good shape that was really nothing wrong with him before th preexisting condition it was operated on all four or five of the prior surgery he had all of this going on and there is no medical testimony connecting this back to the original work accident and so i want to go to dr ross say what he interpreted this is is touching while he's operating so there's no medical evidence there's no factual evidence to support or that it's related to the sneezing incident or to the response or if he connected this case out to begin with and agree with the treating doctor and the commissioner violent for purposes of the commission of life alone for purposes of their decision chain of events which support this is not ssion of the broad based right here central protrusion again read by the same radiologist dr lee had a wise i think that the takeaway from that is the same radiologist saw the l five s one condition prior to the surgery prior to th numerous times never once never once mentioned any symptom magnification or any symptom formalities dr walsh yes i am he said that this gentleman was not in pain medication as of the time of the september seventeenth exam to work driving a truck on the importance of this prior to the sneeze the petition was still very symptomatic was he making progress yes was he cured or no he was making progress but he was still symptomatic the respon condition then that's not a symptom generator after steve's sneeze and sit back and not bring this into general it's exactly the same as it was before the sneezing incident and he was doing great he was getting better so the only thing  change then using that logic is the new