please the court my name is mark wilson our present donald french in this case mr french was injured in a work accident that occurred on september twenty first of two thousand and seven at the time he was working as a machine operator when he had a went to great lengths in my brain to cite the various parts of the medical records in which mr there was complaints of neck pain documented and not going to go through each of them because it think that the when we look at the records that that clearly you know it is that evidence bears that out and i think to say that just to go and say oh well there's an opinion out there that mr french is telling me that he's going in for this so he's the doctor apparently wants to do this and he isn't even doesn't even know anything going on for the cervical condition so even if you accept all that with what you just said we still have a situation where the player has the i mean we uses no causation you have an i mean me who says there is close it and no trigger renders a causation opinion the commission chooses to believe the opinion of the employers just twenty seven in two thousand and eight his records he says if his medical records are negative for any reported network headaches pain symptoms prior to shoulder injury he would have to attribute his headache and neck pain symptoms to the same injury in which a shoulder was involved and to me there was nothing there is no prior history so i mean in retrospect i would have taken his deposition but i didn't think that it was necessary at the time because there was no inserted the general statement is not a causation opinion and that those who adopted by the commission right i agree that that is what it says but i disagree and that's correct and also i would say is just i think because that the circuit court judge said the same thing to me he said you know mr wilson if how do i get around the fact that there's a doctor that is saying that there is no causation and just my response to bad is if the basis of that opinion is unreasonable and again it's the way of the that evidence then it should be disregarded as if there was an opinion there that that's just my response to it and i and i think that clearly the opposite conclusion is apparent here when you consider things from the date of the accident all the way up to the date of the surgery because it really is consistent and also when you look at the findings on the m r i that were eight weeks post accident and not closely related mr french still had permanent restrictions on him that were given to him with regard to the shoulder by dr levy who was the doctor who did the the the shoulder surgery so i would argue that the benefit should have been continuing to the beat of the of tradition here and based upon that and labors with regard to the bills the bills were denied with regard to the cervical condition and if you find causation sort of a condition t bill should be paid as well now with regard to the wage issue i cited the greeny case in there and just to be completely honest with the court  the reason why i thought that the way that the greeny case looked at me we each was correct was because in the greeny case it looked at the smith case and it can sort of the smith case which was like in one nine hundred eighty eight case followed with regard to the wage issue thank you but you can also manifest weight of the memphis weight issue and in particular obviously we're talking about the cervical spine and if i can i want to start with dr delphi murs examination and that took place in october of two thousand and eight now when we get to our objective medical evidence from the get to our m r i when we get to our team gee it's not correlating you know we got we have subjective complaints but we have we have just mild generative just disease we have we know we have no spinal cord compression we have no compromise of the cord we're not we're not seeing any impingement when i see no reason a cause for the symptoms he's experiencing the movie itself says that the c seven ridiculous obviously was patchy at best which even the radiologists report say that that's not diagnostic and as a result dr del i know attributed it to possibly some left cuba tunnel or some cuba tunnel syndrome which was not related to the axe and there was no trauma to the elbow or anything like that of that nature that would cause us type symptoms and i testing as we get some maximal effort i mean it's it seems to be as though we're trying to make our symptoms something maybe more than they really are i think the fact the subjective complaints don't match of the objective findings at least up through dr bill hemmer's report makes it a very reasonable  degenerative changes on that level what the m r i the m r i and even gee don't seem to compare in that regard i think that also points to dr del farmer and his opinion of just simply a soft tissue injury now there is some you know talk about physician i think we have to do the same exact thing with dr elders now additionally we've discussed the how the treaters did not give any opinions we have a we have a statement containing dr howard's records that if there is no complaints then perhaps it's related but i think if you look at that that statement dr howard makes closely he's saying that the pain and the symptoms that the petitioner is experiencing ongoing could be related dr howard you know we don't he doesn't really get into any of the objective finding we've discussed here today that those subjective complaints you know may or may not have any validity at all based upon the objective evidence contained to this gentleman cervical spine now additionally as as you know dr howard's deposition was not taken so he makes this kind of general statement of this kind of informal statement than his records we can address what treatment dr howard thought may have been needed for the cervical spine we don't know dr howard's opinion of what the nature and maybe the extent  to a certain extent and that gives somewhat of a negative inference as to what dr conrad may or may not have said much for your position i think is naturally going to at some extent agree or your side with the patient and there is no opinion to that regard in this case this case who gave it to me and who is a board certified spinal surgeon he's a neurologist he's been he's been board certified in that in that field since ninety four i think that's very reasonable dr cohen and i think that at least as far as we're balancing here you know direct issues of the of the circle spine i think that gives doctor excuse me doctor section ten of the act it's pretty clear there's there's essentially three methods to calculating the average wage i don't need to object lecture you gentlemen on that i'm sure you're very well aware now we're in a situation here where the date of x in occurred within the fifteen weeks from the date of hi as such the third method contained in section ten is appropriate we're taking you know we have our earnings divided by our parts or weeks and parts thereof all we have is pay stubs so we can necessarily determine the parts thereof we have the number of weeks well i submit to you that if no causation opinions were obtained at all in this case that it would be obvious that based upon the net complaints and mediately after the accident in question to the present that  would be obvious that the circle condition was closely related to the work absent in question b just because dr bell hierarchy be opinion he did it doesn't mean that that could be one lied on if that opinion is on the reasonable and i just the reason why i went to such great lengths to set forth all the net complaints is just to just to get the attention of the court just to see no obvious this is that it is related to it again dr done him or did not even review the i and yet he makes findings that normally would rely on a physician looking at the m r i that devastates the whole case and he didn't even review the m r i furthermore he indicates that there was no nothing but subject of complaint on the record and i believe that that was said by the commission as well but yet there is objective evidence the november seventh two thousand and seven howard he indicates that there was evidence of c five six disks disorder and because of this we are referring him to dr mcconnell right for the world cup that's the doctor that indicated within his records about if there's no prior history that