different chair though isn't there in the me seven two thousand and ten i mean at the founding not credible on the first accident because the scope for one main reason is coworkers did not corroborate that there was an accident that's correct however on this last say yes to these first two we have a credibility problem but on this last one the immediate medical treatment corroboration my coworkers we can't really say that he that's not credible well i think again you can't you  an injury but again i'm just there actually from a credibility standpoint but again if somebody reaches a point of critical mass in their lack of credibility i think it necessarily grant you that however i think when you look at it when you look it again and i hate to keep going back to most of the evidence you when you look at the evidence surrounding them a seven hundred ten injury there is no evidence even assuming credibility issues you said we get past that that was anything more than it's temporary aggravation of it's  he characterizes it inconsistently but if there is anything consistent it is that he continues to have this fear asked of pain after the election maybe seven twenty ten injury five days later he goes and s think the evidence step which is what i want to get to dr gordon evidence establishes that when you look at it in that light if you had an injury on may seventh it was an aggravation it was a flare up it was temporary he returned to his baseline roughly seven out of ten pain and then he had some episodes in august twenty eighth or the leading up to twenty percent because of the severe sort of aggravation to his pain you deny that was a work injury he so severe that claim and did not return to work after mason which was wrong he returned on the eleven injury again on the seventh back to work on the eleventh he also testified that if the breast spine we had new medications prescribed by dr tom the pain management position in paoli most importantly we had a worsening of the work restrictions which is exactly the reason why the employer goes to the e r he's got now paid in this chest his neck shoulder blades he's having weakness that he'd never reported before is there any real issue about whether the accident happened the polling councils who say well because he has a valid history of lack of i think when you look at the the symptoms the symptoms again a worsening of symptoms when you look at the mosaic of evidence going back to that term going back to two thousand and one on the symptoms are pretty severe they ebb and flow but there's you know there is pay and it's going up in the upper reaches of the pain scale going back as far as two thousand and one there he had surgery in two thousand and nine to use the c eleven to twelve have a referenced i believe didn't occur and so early august twenty second that's several months after the may accident so the work restrictions immediately following the eighty seven incident when he was discharged from the hospital in light of his complaints in li records long before he ever claimed a type of work injury and i put old papers in my ten days so my point is that there is really no evidence in the record to support missions decision that there was not an accident with respect to said i mentioned it i went inside so in that context i just don't know that you can say that there is fish no evidence to say that you were not a credible witness in the coast both ways you were smiling you were grilling your opponent that his lack of credibility stemmed from several things first his demeanor while testifying second the contradicting testimony not just of the two coworkers who were standing with him when he allegedly injured himself recalled it all but also the nurse robin skier who he reported he testified he reported this injury too and that she told him i don't have any accident forms basically to go away she completely denied any of that ever happening so her testimony the testimony of the to the workers and then also the perpetrators of the contradictory information he provided some medical providers such as that i never injuring his back doing anything off the job when it is very clear that there's a chiropractor health clinic note from july of two thousand and one where he said encourage her ass expiring off a motorcycle the day before so his credibility that destroyed him essentially the first two cases the question is was it is were these inconsistency is sufficient enough to to the support of the finding of the arbitrator the clearly are again going back to the old adage you can't substitute your judgment for that of the finder of fact sue a reasonable writer a fact it merely made broader conclusion out of the totality of the evidence but here there is more than sufficient evidence to support the finding in the first two cases of no causation as to the second case the repetitive trauma case she also the arbitrator also cited the same factors this lack credibility for her denial that