decision on evidence and the record and must refrain from basing their findings on imagination speculation or conjecture in this case not only does the commission's decision against the manifest  the evidence but the foundation of its decision is based on a very crucial imagined fact which is since september second two thousand and three employees condition never got better all of the evidence in the record supports an opposite conclusion we know that the employee had a preexisting condition at our core national five on september second two thousand and three he aggravated that condition while working for the employer when he was performing the same duties whether the frequency of that remained the same is unclear just because the claimant moved up in the world and started his own business and had employees doing the heavy lifting for him he also t not doing that we were i think during the first trial he testified he was operating in a supervisory capacity but he was also doing what he needed to do in order to get the job done it was a new business he was just getting it out the ground and he did testify that he did heavy lifting and operating his business but we commissioned the other didn't and regardless of whether or not he was doing the exact same thing that he was doing before he was released full duty on may twenty ninth two thousand four he had reached maximum at maximum medical improvement and had been working full duty he testified under oath that after the conclusion of the first hearing in january two thousand and five that he felt ok until may two thousand and six when he presented to dr slavin at that time he had been working full duty running his own concrete business for almost two years at that time a year and a half had passed since the first hearing there is no evidence in the record that the employee remained plagued by his condition for a year and a half after the first hearing there's no reliable testimony to support this conclusion and there are no corroborating medical records there were no witnesses not even his own sons  have been working with for several years came in to testify the commission either ignored an entire year and a half of how or why they speculated that the employee must have remained symptomatic during that year and a half despite the and despite the know is that all of these reports before that were handwritten in this one was clearly prepared and anticipation of the hearing that his condition had remained the same since the last time he saw  the last time that he saw him was april twenty eighth two thousand and seven dr slavin also said that he had a recent exacerbation of a chronic condition i don't know right dr slavin would work for five years full duty without any problems he had an accident he had neck or vacation he got back to a regular healthy working level and a year and a half later he had another aggravation if we're going well i don't know because you know the employer didn't have anybody following him around for a year and a half after his hearing i don't know what happened and it would be speculative to say that something did happen but what we do know what we do know is in the evidence is that there is an entire year and a half of no medical treatment after the commission found that he had reached maximum that what the th a condition shown in the m r i there there was no way whether he could know that was possibly related but he did know is that he became symptomatic of the accident so his findings and his lumbar spine were not related to x and they were a actually several cases there is where which is a pretty recent case and weier during the first nineteen the hearing the average trader found that the employees shoulder condition was compensable and then during the second in one thousand be hearing the average writer found that the children had reached maximum medical improvement and the condition ceased to be causally related and since the condition had ceased to be causally related the employer  testifying to what you're describing is subjective claims of claim but is it within the province of the commission to judge the believability of the witnesses including the plaintiff the credibility and the weight of the of them's so why can't the commission believe the claim but i think that that is perfectly acceptable for the commission to believe the claimant but the fact of the matter is in this case is that the there is no evidence for at least a six month period of time that he remain symptomatic not even his own testimony whether it's testimony was credible or incredible there is no evidence to support that after he returned to work full duty before he went to the doctor on may thirty one two thousand and six that he continued to be symptomatic in fact he had been working full duty for two years this case is actually similar to design inventing in that case the employee had an injury out work and he returned to work and not in a full duty capacity and during that period when he was working full duty he sustained another accident repetitive trauma he was in so much pain that he had to  off and actually the employer had changed insurance companies between the first act and the second accident so the two companies and that hashing it out and this core of the commission it remained possibly related because there's no evidence in the record there's no chain links to put together to take you from may twenty ninth two thousand and four to may thirty one two thousand six there's an entire did testify that his back pain was getting worse and still taking pain medication and muscle relaxers between the time he was discharged by dr slogan and before he returned to see him in two was on appeal and went through its normal course of appeal and for which would explain in part why mr navarro was not getting any treatment after he was discharged by dr stop because the case was in litigation and therefore was demonstrated the same exact by ames that he had back in two thousand and three so there wasn't a material change in this condition it was the same condition which was being exacerbated by time going on and also by his continual activities but it wasn't a point to where there was a new injury nor does is there any medical evidence suggesting that mr navarro ever suffered a new injury and this is why the case is different from  from his original shoulder injury and so on the second one thousand be hearing the arbitrator's said well you've got a new diagnosis i don't think that's causally related here we have the exact same diagnosis be exact same condition and he's trying to go for treatment dr slava has outlined what his treatment plan is medication which he tried and he referred him to a pain clinic i think the commission and it is within the province of the commission to examine the claims is well i think what was most clear of all is that dr spencer indicated in his opinion that there was no medical condition no change in the m r i that was performed on navarro when he read went to open his own business was doing much lighter work and did testify that he was not doing the same type of work that he did at the time of the original hearing and that his sons who worked in the business were doing most of the heavy work and he would do some light finishing brushing but was never nowhere near doing the same type of work that he did before so the argument that there must have been some other type of cause just doesn't exist in record because he was not doing the same type of work there was no new accident he had the same condition in the commission could reasonably infer that that was sufficient to establish a continual causal connection  shows an intervening accident that i'm not sure why that particular paragraph is in there because it actually doesn't comport with the rest of the commission decision but but it's my understanding that that was the burden they were trying to place on the the employee testified during the second hearing that he had been feeling ok until may thirty one two thousand and six and then a minute later he testified that his back pain had been getting worse for the past three years which counsel just referred to he did not testify that he had been taking medication all along and three years prior to the second trial was june two thousand and five which was one year after he was released to work all duty and approximately six months after the conclusion of the first hearing this whiny eric inconsistency and his testimony should raise them considerably about flags as to his credibility but putting his credibility aside there is still no  pertaining to the six month period of time i'm not suggesting that in order to prove causation that the employee needs to give us a day by day play by play but a six month black hole is unacceptable and the tri we have no idea what happened between the first hearing the closing of ranks of the first hearing and six months after that and i do that causation does not linger on indefinitely at that point he had