circuit courts affirm and set the industrial commission's worker's compensation commission's decision in this case this is one in fact where the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence i tried this case and i  years later we sold that plant to midwest generation he stayed on and worked there in the same jab do it the same duties at full duty and then down the road as you know developed came under the care for his cervical condition and had surgery at trial the other trader awarded a percentage a very high percentage losses to the arm sixty five percent we had paid all the medical and lost time associated with his shoulder condition and that was a good decision and review i believe and very thin evidence the commission added to the award in the commission found claimants cervical condition related they added to the award ninety five thousand dollars in medical bills that had in fact been paid through the claimants group health insurance with his subsequent employer we don't get a credit for that  because it was not our group health insurance so that's a ninety five thousand dollar one fall to the claimant they also added t t d associated with the cervical surgery and an additional seventeen and a half percent plus use that person as a whole five percent for free right which for two shoulder surgeries and a full duty return to work is a very heavy award but he was denying the rest of their claim and i think doctor complained of shoulder pain he had previous before this accident had medical treatment and complaints of shoulder pain pain and risk along with strangling sensory complaints and that arm for many years prior to this accident and that factual and medical evidence that in fact he did injure his neck or aggravate a preexisting neck condition isn't there if you look closely at the record in fact i'll agree there is as we say in our and when i asked what his opinion was based on he admitted that it was based on the first complaint of neck pain coming one year to eighteen months after the alleged accident and bed there were some sensory complaints in the right arm which were distant with his preexisting complaints but according to him he came and c c and changed in nature after this accident the underlying facts don't support that and as you know when an expert's opinion is based on speculation when the underlying facts don't support that opinion it can't carry the day and that's exactly the case here  and that was the first time that that evidence came up on the records at the time of the incident don't even say he fell to the ground and said he slipped and and grabbed himself on the bumper in her shoulder so his description at trial was he slips he grabbed the bumper his feet went straight up in the air anyway this head against the back of his truck there's no evidence back when it occurred that that was the case there was no treatment to his head there was no bruising there was no complaints of neck pain there was nothing to indicate at the time that he hurt his head or his neck in this accident but that's what he described a trial and that's where we say the commission got it wrong completely wrong when they found that he hurt his neck in the first complaint and neck pain and medical records comes on april eleventh with dr demon's records it's not a complaint of neck pain but the commission picked up on it and it's this sort of speculative commissioner lindsey pointed out in your dissent it was this exact sort of speculative so going out and plucking a fact and turning the whole decision on it that is what we think was shoulder of his neck finding was that the neck was stopped up there is a note in there when he's examining the shoulder that there was some cervical tenderness the diagnosis on that day was soley to the shoulder in the complaints were shoulder pain with no other complaints from it and the note includes the words cervical bursitis so there is no burst in the cervical spine  that's not the case here defects are so one sided here in fact this decision is against the memphis way in my opinion and here's the reason you got that one note of confusing notice cervical tenderness otherwise you have no indication of a neck injury you have no indication of neck trauma and you have no diagnosis of a neck issue except for call you keep ignoring calls but i'm not ignoring i am i think it's i don't think that carries it i mean we have to go on common sense and this court has many decisions where they said even though there's an opinion by a doctor if the underlying facts are so contrary they're not going to follow that opinion i think that's exactly the case with dr koch a couple other points i wanted to mention as relates to the cervical spine the commission relied on the argument that he was in a prior state of good health in a subsequent state of ill health after this accident the facts don't support that as it relates to sensory complaints down the arm he was in a prior state of ill health with regard to the right arm and after the accident that that's simply not the case this man did work at full duty for several years doing heavy work there is no bill health or good health accident bill health thirdly or fourthly the commission  but then at trial we got into the whole thing about him testifying that he was really only working have taze while getting paid for full days and and so he had told his same doctors that his neck was hurting him because he was working so many hours at midwest generation this is during the time when he was at full duty ok so what is it he told his doctors the truth that he was working tons of hours at midwest generation and he he lied in open court to us while under oath that he was actually working only half days or he was lying to his doctors at which point the commission's reliance on his being honest with his doctors  s and shouldn't stand and so we have a guy who wasn't credible i mean it clearly was not a credible witness and it's contradictory testimony is is unimpeachable or rather was and all i can say to that is if someone offered me the deal that i could work a half day and be paid a full day i'd take that deal i don't think that it tells us much about credibility it tells us about the fact which was testified to that he had a family to support and if he was in too much pain to work a full day in his farm and was offering him the ability to work a half day and get paid for that full day so that he could support his family i don't think any one of us would have said no today at counsel points out that we utilized the expert testimony of dr cole rather than a treating doctor what he doesn't point out is that they also didn't go to a treating doctor if it was so obvious that there was no no causation here why not call one of the treating doctors to testify to that fact they talk about then evidence there it's not been evidence he wasn't actively treating before this accident for the cervical spine he has this accident even their own expert dr can i am admits that this accident is something that would be a competent cause of a cervical injury although he minimizes it and says it would be a cervical strain well it doesn't take a huge leap to say if it could cause a cervical strain it could cause a more serious injury to the cervical spine actually causes telling treatment of a work related injury i also think that if you just kind of follow the trail it's not that uncommon for us to see neck shoulder cases where one of the other is created creating one pain they focused the treatment on that in this case they focus treatment on the shoulder he underwent two surgeries still had symptoms then when they finally got around to treating the net then he finally has some relief not complete relief five you say but some relief from those symptoms i think that tells us more than all the expert opinions and everything else they treated the shoulder there were problems with the shoulder but the pain that he was experiencing was also being caused by the cervical condition which was aggravated at the time of this fall and it makes logical sense it's supported by what dr cohen is saying it's even supported by walk and what doctor deny him is saying to an extent to the extent that he's willing to admit yes falling backwards like this and reaching out and grabbing with your hand yes that could cause a cervical strain he didn't want to go that extra step and say and i think it caused this condition but he also seemed not to be entirely familiar with what the findings were in the second m r i and the findings in second m r i are very important  also didn't seem to be familiar with who did the surgery raising the question of whether he'd even reviewed the surgical report and the surgical findings so there were some serious problems with the opinion of dr can i am aware is dr cole very clearly have reviewed a can quibble as to whether the cervical symptoms began three months after this accident or more time after that it's clear from dr cose opinion that there is nothing inconsistent with those symptoms of being masked or superse to the bone i don't think that at this level of her view it hurts me i think that we all wish that we walked in here with a perfect case but if we had a perfect case we would be walking in here so do i wish i could be standing next to the guy and taking pictures and telling him what to tell his doctors you back to i ever have someone who comes in and really gives a great head it's pretty rare most people they just want to get better they're not focused on workers compensation they're now focused on the legal issues and likewise the doctors i've had doctor after doctor testify to me you know you lawyers come in here and you're talking about causation that's meaningless to us in terms of our treatment of the patient we don't care what happens what we care about is what are the symptoms and how do we make them better either he fell down or he was in the bath tub at home doesn't make a difference to the doctor what they're going to take down of the things that are crucial to their treatment of that patient and do i wish he'd gone in and said i think it's clear that this was a non issue until this accident happened we've got a qualified expert testifying that yes the records are consistent with this being an aggravation of that cervical cervical condition assesses hating the i i'm not qualified to say that there is or there isn't all i can say is that he was ultimately diagnosed with a condition that was treated and i don't think anyone anyone is contesting that that ultimate diagnosis is an accurate diagnosis or that the treatment was proper and the doctor denials opinion was that the surgery wasn't appropriate for the work related condition but i don't think that even he was contesting that the surgery was needed for that condition think you just several quick points dr demon's did not address in a medical sense a cervical spine and once he came under his care he treated the shoulders records all relate to a shoulder treatment he rendered no treatment to the cervical spine  in this case the initial histories contain no complaint of a neck injury or neck pain which is one reason why the decisions against manifest weight mr weisberg would tell you he doesn't know the first complaint came three months or a year later it doesn't matter we disagree i mean how do we know someone hurt their neck in a work camp case it's by looking at what happened at that time and what their complaints and treatment were following the injury it's extremely relevant in the idea that you hurt your neck by banging it against the bumper of a truck and you don't have a complain and neck pain for three months is paid only ridiculous and yet that's what the commission in essence decided in this case when they added on in my opinion doctors did in this case in this case he treated his shoulder following his shoulder injury for years five years six years later treatment to the neck is unrelated to that incident