s one day when he was working as a firefighter he was responding to a fire risk in a smoky room he testified that he stepped off the platform he was not aware he was on a platform because the room was filled with smoke he stepped off the platform twisted his knee and slid back against the wall at the time of the accident was wearing as you can imagine a heavy amount here comfortably eighty pounds and firefighters had a three inch blade and mr givens was testified he testified at trial and he was questioned extensively about whether it his head on the wall as he  and he unequivocal he testified he described the accident as sliding down the wall and when asked did you hit your head he said yes and as you can imagine to him he's a firefighter who knows what time period is wearing he knows he's wearing a testified unequivocally at trial he he doesn't deny that he didn't report and act symptoms until four months later he says he let me backtrack a little bit when he injured his knee completely tor the fall and that it would purcell however when his course of treatment began to and for that knee he could receive physical therapy he was under a number of medications at that time he began to the interesting thing about that your honor is that if you read the arbitrator's decision which is in my appendix to my brief reason actually your honor if you read the commission's decision and this is why i think they got it wrong they talked about the commission seem to focus their discussion on had chest pain at the time of the injury that could support and neck injury however that wasn't dr cornets entire testimony he said yes that's one supporting factor that could tell me that somebody has had a neck injury but he also testifies that he based his in his opinion on the fact that mr gibbon sustained a very severe and b injury and was undergoing treatment extensively for that and was on pain medication which could well i think one thing that's important that your honor is that before this accident this mr givens had ever sought any sort of treatment or any sort of problem before this he testified that there had no prior problems he never neck treatment and in the interim between april of two thousand and eight when he heard when he heard himself in august of two thousand and eight when he saw dr thorne that he had not sustained any additional injuries because he was on crutches from his knee injury so i think that's significant and it was also significant to dr coronet that you have somebody who's never had any complaints of neck pain in their life and then they have this traumatic incident where they slide down  to tell us why that would be against the minute this word your honor i don't believe that i just rewrite the commission's decision as i was i waiting and the commission doesn't specifically i think that means that they disagree that factor cornet like simply what you state your honor that they find or not to be they disagree with the arbitrator they going that was more credible but i don't on him and his deposition was taken dr graham's report is three pages he simply reviewed mr givens records he didn't see him he never spoke to him and dr graham in his report doesn't comment on whether the use of pain medication immediately following the accident could have massed any cervical complaints dr graham doesn't address that even though that's what the doctor coronets the determining factors in his opinion that  arbitrator i think got it right in this case because he was able to watch petitioner testified for over half an hour at the hearing and something that i've noticed when i have been before the commission in oral arguments michael last who is the current chairman who is a commissioner at that time has said in front of a roomful of attorneys that even though the commission is a finder of fact and the trier of fact in cases that the commission always gives deference to the opinions of an arbitrator when it comes to the credibility of a petitioner because they're the ones who sit and watch them testify so i think that's significant in this case that you have a commissioner who's who said that and to think it's simply something you consider your honor in looking at what the evidence is in this case the other issues in this case are medical and permanent partial disability specifically says that he finds dr cornets opinion that pain medication that he was taking could master his complaints is something that's very possible and least it wasn't in the records that he had actually prior to august of two thousand and eight so i think that's important that testimony stayed consistent throughout that throughout the this petitioner throughout the course of treatment there's a vast area of discrepancy between the two in april of two thousand and eight people thirteenth two thousand and eight when the ambulance shows and takes a history from history  really based it on really kind of a twofold factor number one the fact that yet so much pain was centered on that and the other part that he actually believed in the original records that there was evidence to show that there were cervical complaints because it nasty itself or or showed details related to accidents and emergency situations that he was trained in experience he testified to the fact that he understood that the histories that he gave his medical providers were months we're going to use in his treatment and  versus lois uptown restaurant this is it's kind of interesting how similar these cases are and in that case a woman fell injured her right she was taken by ambulance her only complaint  the fight several months later she started to notice fact she and this woman had actually had documented preexisting problems and her back to the commission still gave her a word for her back and said it was related to the fall despite the fact that she had not sought treatment for her back there was several months getting treatment like in this case and she had not had any complaints of back pain when she was being correct your honor i have it is contained in my brief so i i try to focus on as much as i could i feel like there's a lot to cover here but i think that is an important period in this case and with regards to its mission or is testimony i don't see how it could be any more consistent and what he testifies to at trial he says when asked since the accident for new surgery i soreness you know i just thought well it's part of it i'm going to be sore for a while and then after my knee surgery i was taken i couldn't in the leave act of pain medication and time klamath tori's and finally after physical therapy i started getting better and i got off the pain pills and that's when my pain just started gradually getting worse and worse so that's what he testified to a trial that's what he told dr cornets that doesn't contradict any of the medical records in this case he does not dispute that there is no