within the province of the commission to determine what the whether the credibility of witnesses and a claimant alone their testimonies enough to establish an accident and she as we often see in cases where we're coming from the commission to the supreme court we've all seen those cases the pond issues and all those type of desperate points we've got substantial ones what we've got here is a very general statute that confers power to the commission commission has set its own rules well seventy forty point ten establishes procedures for filing a petition for review to the commission it doesn't lay out any great details this court has said and we've cited in our brief the t c c case talks ready for this if there are again oh my god this is creating a confusing situation what if it does not the commission wasn't confused they were confused they didn't even feel it was an issue into the just before or argument when one of the commissioners contact counsel and said this is an issue maybe we need to brief it submitted very thorough greece but both sides and the issue was addressed at the commission and if you want to sit have easily they decided there was there was jurisdiction now i think one thing that we can see what the commission do is look to the cases constrain one thousand out and it said we have scenarios weatherstrip compliance we have scenarios where there's substantial compliance and they went through a litany of the tasks and then they announced or the restated the rule that i've often argued for the court there are times when a party will completely fail to undertake an action and this court is applied strict compliance to those scenarios there are times when a party does something but does it imperfectly and this court will apply substantial client's standard the chadwick case is a perfect example we cited that in our brief and i believe it was cited by cited by the court here the commission yet it was actually that they found this was substantial compliance obviously there's no you cases i'm petrified of making sure i get indispensable included and that's a fairly different scenario than we have here and i found it ironic when i look at the setting commissioners thomas the walkie criticizes the majority for that we can't make if it is in the that some of the provisions in the new minutes just went out the window with the ability to get utilization review boards and that type of things and that's not how comp works they might be true and accurate poppy's of the doctors but that doesn't mean that everything in him is gospel this case it's a final to all the issues that were before the court although it's a fall for them from the standpoint of the court does a five year stint in the t t the argument that they're seeking goes out the window when they get their arbitrators order g t d wise of the issues that we're saying a significant the knack those issues are also tied to that case so that's why the jurisdictional issues are important to case now sometimes just briefly about the next opposition that the record does not show that her neck injury or her problems with her neck were causing employment and we say this for this reason there were no complaints with respect to the neck until we see a medical record come up in mid january where dr works says oh you by the way as you mentioned back into simper five simmer seven she woke up and she had a very stiff neck in her problems with her neck again that day and there's nothing that ties it into this accident you are saying that they can come up with there's some ambiguous references in the records and very general references to tingling and numbness in her hands finlayson numbers in her feet maybe she's got bad circulation we don't know but you can't say somebody who's gotten lean on this in their hands on an isolated incident also has a herniated disk where there's no other complaints that are documents we don't have that look at the records when she went to bobo on eleven twenty seven and twelve ten did she say anything to him about my neck hurt so bad i have a problem with my neck she didn't say anything about that that's very significant now we had we don't have a notice issue here because it was not listed on the forms but just just for the sake of pointing out the further a case look at the forms that were filled out in this case as to what the accident she was claiming the eleven twenty three in eleven thirty it's back so back so back there's nothing for referenc woke up with that problem with her neck when she was she identifies a date that's not related to an accident now i've had to spend a scenario where the date that you're pointing to was the date of one of these two work accidents it would be a different story than the chain of events analysis that would possibly be appropriate as you could say if she's ok she has a work accident now she's got next problems in this situation we have her testify oh well over a week after she has a second accident work with her low what it was that the commission did the first thing i guess i would know with respect to their their comments earlier went when she was traveling they did on twelve five they hinted that she was still under her restrictions if you look at the when you read her testimony she specifically says in her testimony that that her restrictions original restrictions ended on twelve for so in four five when she was terminated she had no restrictions and those continued until she went back on twelve ten but the question is what  did with that roughly three and a half week period is there something in this record that supports what the commission did and when i look at what the commission did on t v i'm page three of their decision you know they're focusing heavily on that period of time your state's kaplan there were there were there were a lot of different cases that we talked about but did they voluntarily remove themselves from the work force for their jobs available within their restrictions those types of issues if an employee got terminated  anything in the medical records that demonstrate that the medical bills are not match up with the medical records or they do not demonstrate any anything in back or bunkered that that  you know it's reasonable for her not to report every single problem she was experiencing to her doctors i mean the pain from other parts or about it could have been that skin masking that in addition i mean you can say that her waking up medical records make that clear