please the court now it's all my name's tom crone and i'm here on behalf of the defendants and apparently walsh foods you know i apologize in advance for the duration and i spent in my brief discussing the wilson required issues federal rules of evidence issues and i stand by my position there i think what's important to realize with regard to dr walsh is this dr walsh testified twice to first time he testified and made on may twenty fourth of two thousand and eleven with regard to two different reports i went through his entire first report and he gave a opinions in that first report including the opinion of the rotator cuff tear was not caused during the fall and that there was no evidence of any cervical injury oh that testimony took place before any objection with regard to this particular job description the particular job description by the way was described in detail in dr walsh report but regardless there were pinions regarding the relevant issues in this case prior to any object and secondly he testified a second time on september fifteenth of two thousand and eleven after viewing the videotape this case involves the what happened in this fall and whether it was causally related dr walsh testified a second time with no objections regarding the videotape saying that the video that the father picked in the video did not cause the rotator cuff injury and did not cause of cervical injury so even if we assume for purposes of argument that counsel's position with regard to wilson v clarke in the federal reserve evans was was correct which i don't agree with but initially he provided support in an in a report a written report which controversy but with regard to dr lukins testimony i think you know in the heat he gave in evidence that position subsequent to all of the last opinion of dr luken i gave in  accurate and the commission found that that was not accurate based on medical records that were admitted he also said the history she gave him was of reliant list pain in the neck right shoulder radiating down the right arm and numbness of the right common sense november first of two thousand and nine i asked dr luken if that was an accurate you would agree that you i wouldn't give that causal opinion dr luke you agree that was his last testimony the commission found that history was it dr weber who treated the petitioner after the accident all the way up until the time the petitioner treated started treating for cervical spine which wasn't for ten or eleven months that the weather never treated her for her cervical spine and never made any diagnosis with reverse or goes back so the records are absent that the history that doctor who can relied on of this relentless pain doctor look and specifically said this is the last testimony of deposition there was no redirect rehabilitating saying that if that history wasn't true he could not give a cause all right and i think that he would through it and so that so the commission's finding that the records don't support that history is fully supported by the record with regard to the shoulder  clearly demonstrates that she presented in september of two thousand and nine more than a month before the accident with the exact same presentation that she had to dr weber when she started treating with regard to the shoulder the commission found that that was significant they found that that that pain diagram was significant the other thing is she denied to dr weber prior shoulder complaints dr weber testified that if he found out she had prior shoulder complaint his opinion could change  and my our position is that that pain diagram demonstrates that she had the same complaint and then finally i also moved to the last testimony of dr weber dr weber the last testimony given in this case is i can't say that she actually tore her rotator cuff based upon watching that video