that there was no relationship between the alleged psychiatric problems that survived had and the work accident in addition he ordered a credit to the employer for overpaid t t so what you have to say about that well with respect at least to the psychiatric issue which i'd like to get to because i think with my first point i think the commission's decision to find no causal relationship between his psychiatric problems in the work more information a dental records review and he had a better understanding of this then the patient or the claimants own treating psychiatry's dr routh if you can see all of the who the evidence is he pins all of this psychiatric on preexisting problems and he relates those problems to suit bob's experiences during the bosnian war ok sube i didn't have any experiences during the bosnian war soon it's testimony is i got the heck out of there i went and i left my of my home and i traveled about twenty thirty miles across the border to croatia i stayed with my in laws for seven the result of him allegedly three years war and that that's the only thing i want to get to it seems that the arbitrator seems to think that there has to be a striking of the head to be to relate this to the work accident that's totally untrue and when i asked dr rao about that if you look at the deposition testimony it's in my brief i said dr rao does it matter whether or not sudan struck his head with your opinion be the same he said my pain would be the same catastrophe case mikala case which i think or of you decide i went and got the medical records from prior to this work accident from his dr katz also is again a hired by the employer to to suit up right and if you look at the timing of dr katz seeing survive i think it's important in this sort of ties in with my second point  on august twenty eighth two thousand and eight sued by goes and sees dr watson who's one of his treating orthopedic doctors salute here and when he goes to see dr watson he tells them a couple things i was in physical therapy they made me do a would not restrict his own like to these i think is the quote in them so sue my complains i hurt my knee i stopped going to physical therapy until i could see you about it in the changes the the weight restriction january of two thousand and nine these complaints finally the doctors get the m r i approved by by we're confident they do the m r i and they think he's got a torn meniscus so this guy this incredible it's making all this stuff up turns if you'll notice it seems to me that throughout the records you don't see this problem with the physical therapists complaints about your effort or anything like that until after he hurts himself in and this guy went from you know you know hard work or good you know he was even recognized for getting to work when it would snow really bad no one else would show up and things like that to he can't do anything and i think that caught up with him after having metal put in and then you start to see the psychiatric part of this with him complaining to his primary care physician then going to see dr rao or when he's finally has m r i and left me and says hey you need surgery again  that that we've got here is a lot of the psychiatric problems that subrata has carries over to his relationship with all these doctors that he sees where he just you know he acts like a jerk i can't i can't get around that i mean even d so moving on to my my second point which is the overpayment payment t t d if you look at the different sections and periods of time i talk about the first one between august twenty eighth two thousand eight and march sixteenth two thousand and nine the commission essentially said well yeah he had this problem with his knee and during that period of time we're going to say good work now mind you during during all those twenty eight oh wait to march sixteenth but essentially the commission saying well yeah we think you can work up to the date of your surgery on your mean which we find is that it's required to alleviate your pain ok so he's forced to go during that period of time with a bomb mean it without t t t up until the date of the surgery i don't think that makes any sense the second period of time ten and they base that on dr gross is opinion about during that period of time the slew care physicians these orthopedic treating doctors so about five different patients status report these patients in fact all the patient sattar says reports in the record city this guy cannot work ok so essentially the commission is now trying to pick and choose different opinions so yeah we're going to use dr wasn't opinion from here to say that you know that anything you can work from august twenty eighth to march sixteenth but we're going to ignore dr watson when he says this guy can't work at all for the next period of overpaid t t d see what i'm saying they're saying well dr gross we can use that here because it is he said that here so there was no finding of incredibility for any of the sleep care doctors by the commission by the way there he didn't say these people are not credible or anything to assume the role commission to assess the credibility of the witnesses to weigh the evidence to resolve conflicts in the evidence to interpret the medical testimony of the commission based its position on five pages of single spaced facts very few of which are even mentioned by the claimant in his brief and based on those facts it's our position that he has not shown that commission's decision as to each of the disputed additions is against the manifest weight of the evidence that an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent six of its decision the commission before discussing each of its issues that is the side it made the finding that the claimant lacked credibility in this case and that his lack of credibility should be considered and be informative as to each disputed issue that was decided that finding was not appealed by the claimant in position that it was waived in that he has conceded that findings of the commission that the claimant hear and has no credibility i would suggest to the court that the only credible chain of events in this case are the repeated instances of claimants treatment of noncompliance the cooperation and his many absences of exaggerated symptoms and disability brief i laid out three pages of instances of this credibility issue that the claimant have i think we've touched on some of them we tried to point some of them out but his response is probably going to be able of course because he has the psychiatric condition that was the result of the accident so he's going to be a little bit you know oftentimes the psychiatric condition is testified to by dr still intuition and let me let me preface m preexisting personality tendencies to magnify illness to exaggerate complaints and true of manipulation where he based it on he based it on personality test personality traits and so i would suggest to the court that dr storm's diagnosis in this case this point on is consistent with what all the treating physicians and therapists have documented over the answers and so they performed a diagnostic arthroscopic with the possibility of maybe finding him and discus and they found normal ligaments and hartley and they did  got up and walked away from that outpatient surgery the final point i was a guest of the court you know you have to get to the psychiatric opinions in this case you can look at the documents this man originally alleged the left leg injury there's no question he head on crete i was in and out of consciousness and ever since that day i have suffered recurrent headaches and ever since that day i have suffered these multiple  symptoms that testimony is contradicted by his application itself if he was aware of those immediate injuries at that time they should have been listed on the application it is contradicted by his own medical records were multiple hospitals doctors and therapists made no mention of a head or psychiatric septum for sixteen months until march of two thousand and nine when he consults d rail for the first time and so i would suggest of the court that based on those contradictions to gather with the commission's finding that this man is not credible that is sufficient evidence to deny him the commission's award he is supported by the various medical evidence but at the same time they are considering that in the light of this man not being a credible but so on behalf of my client i would ask  the circuit court's order affirming the commission's decision we've had five individuals look at the facts in this case and they all agree an arbitrator three commissions three commissioners a don't think that he should have i mean this is posed to be completed in a half an hour i don't think it's supposed to be given to people who don't speak english there you know reading levels he said i don't know whether or not the the interpreter in this instance had an eighth grade but reading level or not and it so to sort of come from i don't know they hired him so i really don't know but the it took him two hours to complete this test when normally it takes a half an hour to do but let's look at the questions on this and c m i three and these are the questions that that stillings bases his opinion that there is create existing i have a hard time he  answer true the phone i have a hard time keeping my balance when walking now i understand this guy had a severe pressure is of course going to stay true i very often lose my ability to feel any sensation in parts of my body again or leg he's had those complaint asleep because painful memories of a past event keep running through my mind ok answers true to that and then those are healthy preoccupation questions ok i'm and many people have been spying into my private life for years they hired somebody to spy on him and he caught him you know what he was going to do to physical therapy and so the skies follow me around so all these things can be explained out when i asked dr stillings about all do you taken that into account when you're in in these psychological tests and he says no no no no the testing doesn't know that ok so basically he doesn't take into account that zubaydah does have this will injury use the lower left leg when saying he's got a health to the evidence that i want out next she had to subpoena these questions to see or hastily is what are you actually basing this on i just i want to see a spit out of a report that you say well he's got you know a preexisting problem and then what trends out i mean take into account that this man had a horrible fracture those lower left way and that and that's the situation and so that's how you're getting to your conclusion and that's just wrong i mean i don't think i have to be a doctor to be able to tell you that over but they are looking into the crystal ball and saying i know where this guy was like before this this accident happened and i don't think you can do that in this case i think the medical evidence that i presented at trial