what i'm asking for today is a finding that on the facts of this case the commission's reliance on the opinions of dr sushi is patently on reasonable now the commission's conclusions and the commission's weighing of the evidence have to have some sort of reasonable basis in this case the basis for the commission's opinions or the opinion are primarily the opinions of dr sue she responded section twelve examiner dr suci three months after the accident occurred a physical exam  but she's got right sided complaints doesn't make any sense to me i think she's fine now if the case ended there but it be at this if you straight i mean versus treat her and i would really have a basis to be standing before you today the problem is that there's a whole lot of shoulder he then reported to dr philosophy in pain and stiffness his lower part of his neck the medical records otherwise failed to reflect any further report of neck symptoms until over six months later so don't  its own at the time it was issued i could i could understand dr c i'm not trying to to disagree or to to throw dr sushi under the bus he's a reputable guy who knows what he's talking about but doctors there's a whole lot of things that dr sue she didn't have d didn't have the epidural steroid injections that would later be performed he didn't know how this would turn out dr sue she didn't know that there was going to be an f c e done in august of two thousand and nine with politico testing the show that the petitioner's didn't northwestern dr yuri grecian who the arbitrator even called highly credible was going to take a look at this see a collapse this could all five s one and recommend a fusion surgery i don't think it's appropriate for the commission to rely upon the opinions of dr suchi when there's a whole lot of evidence out there that you arbitrator had the opportunity to see the doctor so she would not only be saying is it opinion is only as good as the underlying information upon which it's base there's a problem with the underlying i don't think that the information the doctor said she had at the time was necessarily flawed i think it was simply incomplete the example i'd draw is i'm a football fan and so the example i draw is the doctor suchi is the referee the field he sees one angle and he throws a flag he makes that call but the referee number who is going to have access to six or seven camera angles he's going to have a better chance to see what really happened that's what happened here dr griffin was able to see the question before the commission was is her present condition of bill being related to that accident and the commission heard her testimony saw the medical records and said no she failed to prove that there was causal relationship and that opinion is supported by the own right leg is hurting my back hurting but i'm looking at the m r i which is a left sided herniated disk there's no correlation and actually dr ms are said i think there may be something else going on here i think that they may be some sort of system systemic process here go get a c but really it's a straight you need a couple more weeks of physical therapy i'm going to keep you on light duty this doctor missouri had actually released had full duty work and put it in my mind dr johnson was a little more conservative said you need a couple more weeks of p t for this strain you know and then you should be able to go back to duty and puts her in them i as a kid you may fifteenth two thousand and nine the claimant testifies that she doesn't go back to dr johnston because she doesn't want to hear what he has to said say because he's going to tell her to go back to full view work and that your strain is done so instead she goes off and sees dr johnson doctor angles doctor angles does eventually into a disco gram i believe in december and that this program is discordant again her pain is produced on her left leg and her symptoms are all on the right  recognized that and said what he's opinion is actually flawed because he got it wrong relative to the discovery so the commission did its job it looked at all of this information and and reviewing all the information including the claimants testimony and the medical records and opinions cited with dr mizu or dr johnston it and dr suchi and said that there was no causal relationship and that yet decision is supported by ample evidence in the record therefore i would request briefly your honour's first with regard to the causal connection opinions of doctors maser johnston and sushi the problem of those opinions is that none of those doctors knew what the condition of bill being was and they couldn't possibly have known they couldn't have known t was done showing the grade five tear and showing the collapsed disc in all five s one if i didn't have that information i'd probably call it a sprain strain too if i'm doctor suits your doctor maser at the time they saw her there's no way they could have known about the do is go back to the desk dr grecian recommended fusion to treat that it was appropriate to do so dr grecian had all the information in hand he made the right call and the commission arrogant in relying on the opinions of d