the case that the matter was tried before the arbitrator in january excuse me january eleventh you have a trigger had issued or findings on january thirty first two thousand and eleven and found that johnson had sustained an accidental injury on june seventeenth two thousand nine arising out of and in the course of her employment and she also found that his condition was related to that accident frank packer reviewed the decision before the commission which thereafter from the arbitrator's decision on the issue of accident one in a split decision reversed the arbitrators findings on causation the dissenting commissioner wrote me that the june seventeenth two thousand and nine accident was a clear aggravation of johnson's low back condition and cited since grown support of his opinion we then file an appeal to the circuit court of king county which confirmed the commission's decision in this appeal bob it's our position that the commission was incorrect in reversing the arbitrator's decision on causation the commission commission's decision that there was no causal connection between johnson's accident and his condition of ill being was against the man if this way to be bad pain and right leg pain it's a very specific exit and from that point in time johnson's condition progressed and worsened but he had a consistent course of treatment and the job that he was performing up to that time wasn't right to the job this is a job that was somewhat physical he had a lifts kiri up to sixty four pounds here frequently pull sixty eight pounds and he was able to perform this job five to seven days a week working forty to sixty four hours a week he did the job for eight months except for two weeks to work in this heavy duty job and then he has a specific accident and band he has the symptoms this effect at excuse me after this accident occurred shortly thereafter he was no longer able to perform this job and this is a fact that's not disputed in looking at the medical evidence one of the most important pieces of diagnostic evidence is the e m g of november twenty third two thousand and nine the e m p as a test for nerve damage in this case the doctor performed the interviews dr purcell and the injury results showed bilateral reported to known as johnson had an m g back in fed december of two thousand and seven and that was normal so we have a significant change in two n g s one for the accident one after the accident so the injury is perhaps the strongest piece of diagnostic evidence that we have that shows a exits and this production value was consistent with the symptoms that johnson was experiencing so there's a lot of diagnostic tests in the records and to address the medical evidence in these diagnostic tests interpret it we have the testimony of two different doctors we've got the petitioners were from december two thousand and seven it was a year and a half or two years prior and at that time johnson was in need of some treatment he treated a brief period of time and then he didn't have any ongoing treatment it was i think dr nally said it was a small exacerbation but nothing for a long t well i'm sure that the basis of my argument essentially is the commission in order to have found against causation must have relied on dr macneill is that i'm sorry dr matters testimony doctors dr matt mathers testimony was not credible and i want to elaborate on this the purpose of documenting matters deposition i'm six years the examination of johnson was in part to address the causal relationship of his condition to the work injury so he examines him i think back in march two thousand and ten he doesn't collect any information johnson is job activities were and he had not even known how long johnson had been working for print pack up until his date of accident and more importantly and this is the main point of my argument neither presented inconsistent testimony he was presented medical evidence to review an e m t the india of november two thousand and nine if you're after examining after reviewing that evidence and some other evidence and examining the johnson he writes is a news report and he accepts the findings  that he basically says in his the m g shows no abnormalities in the right leg this is directly contrary to what dr purcell's report says and then during his direct testimony again he contradicted dr purcell's findings an examination was asked about the name jesus that of the e m t was normal for the right leg he testified there were no findings in the right extremity when he was further pressed on this inconsistency during cross examination for the very first time dr mather knowledge is you know what the e m t was abnormal was fabricating his opinions and i submit that these inconsistency is an overwhelmingly comic question his credibility and if you take away dr matter's testimony what's the remaining evidence you have you have the medical expert dr november two thousand and seven really did take into account this issue that you're explaining you're bright i don't think so your honor i mean they took into consideration that there were there were findings going back and i don't think they can took into consideration how matter testified to those finding my point is he was inconsistent he had said he ignored findings and then he changed his opinion and comes up with some new theory i think he was just trying to kind of get around the issue i don't you write a report his purpose is to examine to figure out if there's a causal relationship and he  most significant piece of evidence that any e m t that showing acute ridiculous uppity he's going out of his way not to put that in the report to kind of this regard those findings and then when he's really pressed on it then all the sudden change in you comes up comes up with all these theories that there's no support and if you take his if you take that out of the equation the remaining evidence you've got mcnally who testified that the accident aggravated the condition you know the fact that johnson had a specific work accident with an immediate drastic change in his condition following the accident and we have the fact that a surgical recommendation is being now made to address not just roll back in place but his right leg complaints we have a mechanism of injury that is compatible and consistent with causing a well back injury you get the objective evidence of the c t myla graham and you have the remaining evidence would only point to one conclusion that johnson's condition of being is called are related to his work accident and we are asking this court to reverse the commission's decision making the incident in which mr johnson was a volved in the summer of zero nine not exist in a vacuum we heard nothing of the last fifteen minutes about the history of significant injury in two thousand and four after which there were two lumbar surgeries at the same level we're talking about here l five s one he felt the man was not at maximum medical improvement that he needed another surgeon he's a lumbar fusion he predicted what happened mr johnson as to the idea and went on from there dr goldberg also said he should not engage in this type of work anymore the respondent employer at the time of the two thousand and four incident is the same with the same type of work he was doing for print back indeed when he settled a case in two thousand and six i do not have the month my apologies when that case was settled in two thousand and six that stated right o could can return to his work at the employer now there's a way of explaining i guess what that means or what it was supposed to admit but in light of the medical history it was obvious that those pink sheets as we call causally related to the event that he had a good work i'm sure what nineteen there were ever dated or is it merely as the result of this terrible condition of his back that existed before that date it's not a question first of all there was no accident arising out of in the course of his employment we've claimed that all along and second there is no causal connection between the events of june two thousand night and the condition of his lower back which again dr mcnally testified think the key pages  to five o two to five ten five eight you'll see this testimony from dr miguel he admitted this condition a deteriorated to the point where any kind of twisting bending this was the condition of his back anything could have caused and yes there is there certainly is a question what will interest constitute an accident he was working he was pulling a cylinder but when we look at what the definition of an accident is something unexpected i think that's something happens and expectedly that's may have to soon we have the old  etc what we are submitting is this wasn't a sudden it wasn't unexpected this was a long trail of facts along the trail of deteriorating condition to the point where his body i think you  were so deteriorated that this injury to him could have happened if you roll around in bed it might well get certainly we don't disagree with that  is a condition that's not work related i'm close by reminding the soul that not everything that happens at work is compensable this happens to have been one of those events job he worked there for eight months there's a two week period in favor he didn't work or he had treated he was off work but other than that he's working it's not it's not a light duty job he's doing a very specific very kind of an awkward position that he's in when he's  clearly exposed to a greater risk than the general public by having to perform at newark and while performing that his symptoms change his condition changes it's aggravated sick celebrating with knowledge he's got a bad back he's had it for a long time but this accident aggravated back it made it worse he couldn't work pretty much any more after that his symptoms were consistent and continued since that that time he never resumed and now he has a consistent right leg ridiculous but the that's been as we talked about extensively it's evidence that clearly the accident happened and as i've said before if you have i don't believe the doctor matters and you just should be considered because he was inconsistent and i think he said she lied and said in his  deposition testimony and avoided issues he was trying to certainly fabricate work make his companions consistent while ignoring some vital evidence so i think when you eliminate that the totality of the evidence would mandate that there is a causal connection between johnson's accident and his condition