hall just this hudson is unable to be with us because of a prior commitment but for the record is a fully participating member of this court in this case is a benefit fully of the  that instead of determining whether arbitrator lindsey's decision was against the manifestly to be evidence the start of court judge opted to weigh the evidence and substitute his own opinion for that of the arbitrators i'd like to point out that you call court cases which involves a motorcade or a circuit court judges applying the wrong evidence to support of original decision the resolution of credibility of witnesses including medical testimony is solely the province of the commission circuit court was scolded for substituting its judgment with out of the commission in response t vacated the orders of the circuit court and the original commission decision was reinstated and similarly and lenhart tool and die company versus industrial commission the claimant steve decker testified he'd been working on and a grinder machine and he te remove the wheel and his right leg the claimant sought treatment at emergency department where he diagnosed him with arthritic indigent of changes in the right knee mr decker was eventually recommended for surgery is treating physician dr holt believes his condition was related to his well documented preexisting problems his nd treating physician dr starman disagreed finding a work act that aggravated the condition the commission affirmed and adopted the arbitrator's decision denying accident without comment upon appeal circuit cour its judgment without of the commission and the appellate court agreed finding the commission's original decision was supported by the testimony of the initial treating physician dr hall and the claimant extensive history of problems of the right knee the appellate court noted the test of whether the commission's decision look support the testimony of mr lyons indicating appellee told him he revoke his hand with significant we feel by disagreeing with the testimony that was disagreeing that the testimony with significant he reevaluated the credibility of the witness the job reserved for the fact finder ok well there's no dispute that the it probably continued working is regular ironwork duty ten hours a day until he was laid off in december he also began working for a different employer after that he also failed to  present st follow up appointment until after he was laid off further there was no causation opinion from the original treating doctor dr toben linking the condition to the work accident on nov th two thousand and thirteen and some of his records indicate the condition was not work related which was not much of an opinion as you'll find out she pointed out that he didn't know this is a work injury occurring out of a forty two thousand and thirteen dollars he didn't know throughout the course of the treatment that this was a work injury he was unfamiliar with his prior treatment and i p e r and his treatment with the st reader dr toben he didn't he didn't review the prior imaging at the e r with dr tobin and he didn't compare those to his own imaging and most importantly he never testified at the deposition to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the condition of polly's rest was caused by the work accident on november th two thousand and thirteen our own said he testified the mechanism of injury probably could have caused this condition but he never specified he also agreed that the in history failed to meet a spurt of proof i mean these histories are the same that were provided to the treating physicians of the strength of the medical causation turns on the accuracy of the subject of history provided to the injured worker given his history was not credible medical causation was not a we also find it interesting that in the initial e r x ray there was no note of a fracture and only degenerative changes yet when he falls that the dr toben for his next there's a doctor come in again used the term probably could cause as opposed to did cost and i think that's the only disagreement that i have with the mission and the actual testimony was probably because and i think the mission was looking for did cause this accident the addition was asked to go over all his prior injuries and he went over injuries to his left wrist which had substantial injuries to his back me ankles and laceration of his right h being referenced and i do recall having done let's explain that this was an acute injury that there was no this was not a chronic injury or any injury that occurs slowly over time that it takes substantial force to create this kind of his hand and i think that the confusion there leads from the fact that mr lamb row has had extensive damage to its left wrist totally unrelated to this and prior acts that's your forte yes place from a basically credible simply that it was not persuade it was not persuade i asked and i think that's right and i have no further statements accidents notice and causation the accident wasn't the employer was provided notice tell he after he left the job site when he was laid off obviously we lost the notice on our notice the fence and then this is just one doctor's opinion in this case i think it's still the phishers burden to prove that that opinion is sufficient to cause we connect this accent to his condition and i don't think his opinion does that he thinks it probably could cause this but then he doesn't even link that this accident could probably cause this condition he just says you know this type of gripping could probably cause this condition so he doesn't even make it to the right date of accidents i know that  there is medical the medical records that do indicate the prior treatment were injured and by the shooter's counsel himself and we find it uncredible that the petitioner cannot remember whether or not he had any other prior restraint meant he said all all the only treatment he'd had was a laceration he was he was questioned on it he didn't he failed to even mention the carpal tunnel syndrome which would have occurred in two thousand and ten and he didn't even report that let alone any other type of injury that might be going on we feel that the x rays from the initial year are report not showing these conditions is significant proof for the arbitrator to rely on to prove at the symptoms he reported during the initial your visit were different when he saw dr toben and when he saw that i mean i think that's further evidence i just think you know i'll go the manifest way the evidence is not an ultimate standard that can be overturned i mean there's plenty of evidence to prove that the arbitrator had support for this decision i think that's what needs to be focused on you know opposing counsel wanting to save the doctor whilst testimony about him re breaking his hand was just confusion well that's him what really weighing the credibility of the of the witness again you know something that he should be doing that's the reserved for the arbitrator and there's other things the gap in treatment it's you know it's be the fact that he kept working he was injury from two thousand and ten is that correct so he was unaware of all prior injuries he was unaware that this injury that he was treating for was even working great he noted that throughout the course of the treatment you did know he would have put more detail  his records how do you know he never reviewed the prior records in the e r he never reviewed dr tobin's record he never compared them i mean and then he gave the opinion that it probably could but that we can get to the specific accent to a specific condition the why why require him to prove causation at all right i mean if you're going to say there's an accident there's automatically causation and i think i think he needed to prove both that is why it's in the law and he didn't do that and that's the arbitrator found i mean i think because figure out you know as the only thing we do know is an m r i indicates a prior caucus i don't release and then we have the records from dr toben which indicate a prior research or it could be the carpal tunnel it could be something else was the century to the to the wri right and then when he goes to see a doctor till the next year port pain and the rest and and so it's kind of different it's confusing right because he changes his symptoms and now he ends up getting surgery on the wrist and so that's