completed another surgery also in the physical therapy records in march he also advised that he had read torn minutes specifically that arbitrator lynn risher lindsay stated that she he knows specific fine no he did not know the actual transcript is from april of two thousand and eight and in that case the only thing he said was that additional would now be like to take the depositions because he had no recourse the other was no yes or yes or you're the one yes or then i took the case and brought it to trial because of the fact that they paid this man with a fourteen year employee him years and then all of a sudden because of the fact they discover they have some other insurance available they stopping now the question is not whether or not he had an injury or numerous injuries but the whole time he's working for us good industries he's not working for beacon one insurance or zenith insurance the irrelevancy of which policy coverage this is the reason it had to go to trial i don't understand why they couldn't agree between themselves each insurance company yes this man has a debilitating injury a number of surgeries have been performed their own doctors agree that certain portions of the surgery should have been performed other portions should not have been dr hall in his testimony which is also contained in his complete medical records which were submitted would not have been any different the question is i supplied a letter from dr hall which identified that the current treatment of mr bowman his current disability was related to the regional accident now this all occurred prior to the case being put on all this information was available to the respondents attorney let's assume that to be the case you've got some impediments to overthrown it allowing into supporting the idea that the arbitrator did not hear it allowing the new deposition evidence at the start of the reports were available to the respondents in addition there was a complete medical record review done by dr mash for the respondent there other attorney had that done in order to establish that original accident was responsible for this entire series of events until you saying that trial you were caught off guard by the exclusion of i was caught off guard by mr bowles amy didn't have a second accident i was surprised mr pole would be the treating physician is the only and the final arbiter of this series of events whether or not the original work or subsequent events occurred in any event the result is the same he was treating this gentleman not only for serious problem in his knees but also man his hand with his knees all right so that you ask the average bear to make a finding of the cause is there a finding of the cause that you could point to in the record aside from the argument here aside from my argument here your honor i went in on a motion bull's in his testimony said there was no he's a september injury quite frankly didn't tell us walk quite frankly you know what's the difference of us what industries is responsible for one accident two accidents or three accidents what's the difference in my opinion he had both of those events covered he had two eps file when i went into the courthouse prepared to prove this  and mr bowles testimony came out under oath that no nothing else happened i didn't have another accident well that kind of surprised me and i think that was obvious in the hearing that that was a surprise and then you move to dismiss that less why we took so much time to caution him about you know dismissing the second the second application for adjustment point it came out that what did that have to do with your lack of proof when the arbitrator did not allow the medical record it was basically a letter from dr hall steps in causal connection for the most recent treatment we had hundreds of pages of dr holmes previous medical me asking that question are you saying that at least in the record the record shows that at the time and the to ask for the deposition response counsel said i told him before hand i was going to have object to the medical recor i don't i don't know what else i could have done so that's why you think you needed a deposition in advance that's correct because miss lafayette indicated that she would not object