word and she was walking back to the car on the sidewalk she stepped on the edge of the sidewalk and fell was it a slip or a tread it's been described both ways in the rocker but nevertheless she did fall on her left side she reported this immediately to her company that's not in dispute she saw dr shortly after the fall but she did not state steroids injection into my right hip as opposed to my left hip because my left hip was bothering me but again that's not mentioned in those initial medical records time with bob in december of two thousand and eight percent started her such that she felt she needed medical treatment she received that medical treatment x ray was ordered and it turns out she had a vascular process over the left that she saw a specialist the specialists for surgery skeet repeatedly in his testimony to qualify his knowledge of the purpose of that steroids chopped heat he stated that coming out of course this is after the fact he repeatedly stated i don't know whether she received that steroids shot into the left there but for pain to the left it meaning there would been an indication if there had been a fall an actual incident or whether or not it was for sinuses but against the manifest weight of the evidence when you're done well here's one reason why one reason why is this that doctors shine cop did not even see the fine dr shine pos initial written report actually didn't even say it was a deal a pops initial written report which was records review only all it said was it could be the steroids but it was the ball opened by the reason the reason it was the ball was because it was not a fracture or decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence with the opposite of losing is clearly an error and the generally the case is see if there is any competent evidence in the record to support the decision mission it must issue only involved whether or not the steroids resulted from this fair roy dejection resulted in the a vascular necrosis because the timing of that injection matched up with the timing of the fall that was that narrow issue and we subsequently learned not only through dr shyne cop that he completely ruled out that this story could be a cause of it but they are tainted another doctor's report and provided some additional records and he also conclusively prove also did but by the time of his testimony he did know and that's because the response provided additional records in fact those records consisted of the petitioners pharmaceuticals or first the history of all the medicine she was taken because all doctors seem to agree that although a minor trauma would be rare but not unheard of because if that's really a process very lucky minimal use of steroids would also be very rare and they'd like to see a long consistent course of steroids in the pharmaceutical records prove there was not a long consistent course of steroids and the respondents second doctor stated that so that's why how it became conclusive doctors testimony to  what i think it is psych we are unusual in a situation where the issue boils down to whether or not the response doctor had the opportunity to take a history from the claimant herself and you compare that first the treating physician to of course took her history will not report an injury to a doctor they go to see for one thing but will definitely report it to a doctor that they're going to see for that injury so in other words i might see two contemporaneous medical records about the same time one is to the family doctor based on a mention of anything and then i mean they knew about the injury it wasn't like there was in order to discover trader dealt with heat he didn't seem to understand that it had been reported to the injury that he also were to have some questions about whether the accident even occurred in the first place because of that but there was a speak for the other clients mr mcgovern was referring to when the court asked him about why she wouldn't have misled but would have reported the condition to her doctor what i can say however is that the record in this matter has no explanation as to why she didn't report anything to her doctor in her initial visits you know evidence or testimony about it that's correct the record does clearly show that the first time as the court noted that she sought treatment for a condition or symptom truly that it was in december of two thousand and eight bearing in mind this was in april of two thousand and eight accident in addition to that i would point to the pits to the court that she did not report a fault to her doctors of a fracture one trauma to the fore moral you get a vast rose but in this particular case the petitioner's doctor was unsure really whether it was a result of trauma or this matter did not rise to the level that he is a medical professional so see it's with a cause of a basket necrosis as council related as dr schuchat testified he associates the level of trauma with a fracture or a larger impact th absence of media and medical treatment that the trauma involved in the fall did not rise to such a level that one would expect wouldn't you see the actually much simpler than that neither of these eight and the fall was reported at that time it wasn't until february two thousand and nine just to make the record clear and the other thing is i think it's interesting as me how would a copier salesman know what caused a stuck with it and the opposite conclusion is not clearly apparent well i mean i guess the implication here has is that if a the commission chooses a doctor's opinion but it's nonsense it means that the commission ruled wrong  i said if it's nonsense and there is no foundation for it and we can eliminate that ground you will win with the other opinion but if both of them are based upon medical reasons and like truth and on the other end of the spectrum it being utter nonsense somewhere in there is against the manifest weight of the evidence and it's not on one of the other and the soundness of the doctor