please the court my name is richard k p law and i represent the petitioner paul thomas in this matter this is a case where at the time of the nineteenth be hearing my client was already been treated for two and a half years during move out a month or two apart the issue here before your honor's is the circuit court of cook county fair in affirming the commission's decision because the commission's decision that the petitioners current condition at the time of the nineteen b was not related to his work related accident it's a teller of two thousand and eight and we believe that was against the manifest way to be out there are three major points i would like to talk about to support this the first  figure and finally concluded assuming of the veracity of his history there's no claimants medical history to report it i would suggest that the problem is work related so he's basing his opinion based on the truthfulness of the of the claim of his medical history and didn't the commission also found that he gave the claimant gave inconsistent histories to the medical writers yeah there's two issues here that i'd like to address the first one is with big failure we look at the time he eliminated the need buckling issue because of the fact that by that time very scolding to be found nothing wrong with any right now back to the petitioners issue that you're asking about the petitioners credibility are they actually the couple of points you have to seem to acknowledge but part of them were taza in terms of his opinion about how we came to that conclusion the full effect of that conclusion specifically the need public and about how the scope was already done that's how we limited the issue and we think that's an important decision to think about the only thing which we would like to say is is that paul thomas was working consistently during normal hours on a regular basis after the accident of september twenty sixth two thousand and eight there's no dispute about that as a result the commission seemed to take a similar approach of there was interview factors as gap this is other factors are trying to have problems when there's no reason to because he has not he was working function with no problems doing his full two job at that time that's why we believe that between the fact that he was working about that one we have to keep in mind he spent two and a half years going between all these doctors and it wasn't like he was jumping on his own they were going to refer back and forth moving around because of that he didn't always worry which where he went in what order and that's where the is to his credibility is not there because the commission actually goes on to say we don't believe he's lying they actually state that we don't think he's lying it's just that we don't know if he's credible but they haven't say based what they based on his not being credible is easily explainable by the fact that if you look at right the back is denies any problems with his back to lumbar spine pain symptoms have resolved i think that's pretty clear a week earlier he said lumbar back pain is holding a lot better there is no evidence of any back pain couple of times we can't ignore that by pain as being independent of itself all right the radical opportunity signifies that there is some problem with the lumbar region he mentions this the red lumbar region problems in general nine seems like they're they can see only doctor to provide a causation opinion here for you specifically what was that causation of exactly what the doctor arrest but i would assume that when he's assuming the veracity is also talking about the records and everything else because the reason why is he was actually involved the cheating for a while and so you would have to look at all those records everything else before  everything else so it's not simply the petitioner coming in even though it's allowed in six up to this commission but the petitioners own statements can be accepted as a truth by itself there's more evidence there's a surrounding  as i understand it when i read his testimony he's talking about two different injuries one is the september two thousand and eight injury which is at issue here is also talking about an injury that occurred two to three years prior to and this is where the causation opinion comes in right correct ok the one part of a red letter he attributes the back pain to the september eighth injury he says his back pain started after the last injury which would be superb or away but then later in that same letter he says his problem started after his initial injury so what's he talking about there when he says his problems started after his initial injury was he talking about the injury that occurred two to three years prior to the september await injury the way i would look at it is that in the totality of the latter he's talking about the styles that the person had also in when we said with a prior injury in the conditions other for the part i'm assuming he's talking about me then this is the sum and substance of what you know you're basing you know your argument on is that clear and isn't it the commission's determination here or the we're reviewing and the commission determined that that was an ambiguous opinion it best i would disagree for the following reason we're here because of the knee i would agree one hundred percent that it's unclear because he mentions specifically that he had no problems before this accident and referenced the back i would argue that the back use very clear about where it came