not more important to see who the witnesses were involved here the witnesses involved were police officers they needed they had special training in how to do accident reports document histories and the chronology doesn't support that mr taylor hurt his meat and tore his patellar tendon in the original incident the original accident report i think is the original rush reporters very important and it goes into great detail about an injury to his for it drew blood there's no mention of his need he works for a period of time makes no mention of his name he goes and seeks medical treatment and tells the doctor  nurse practitioner who turns out to be a personal friend of his when he is complained to her outside of her practice before about his need and the history there is he was working on his toilet and he was wrestling with a coworker there's an m r i that shows there's a morning everything that you passed isn't right on point and i'll get right to it through i'd like you to take a look at page seven of the commission's decision that's an important part because it says and i quote the second report is the form forty five which is dated point number one he wasn't wrestling with a coworker nurse mickey wrote he was wrestling with a such a subject who was resisting that's what it says on the record if you take a look at this and it's on page and i'd ask you to take a look at that expressly stated quote i don't believe he had an injury so the question you're asking me is not really answerable this is clearly not the case from the object of evidence  was appropriate yes he did although there's no question so why are you suggesting that he testified to me and didn't he have been injured because quote i don't believe he had a specific injury so the question you are asking me is not really addition i'm delighted i got it because it shows exactly where he's coming from another words if you're on the ground like this you're right you're that oh yes you're right you know you that word or they get that off on the wrong track the testimony of a claimant or no i think this was the i think this was the commission putting their spin on it and i'll read again three paragraph the commission decision i did read this before i'm sorry the next reported he's been wrestling around with a coworker and wasn't sure what caused the injury that's what they wrote in the decision was quintus thirty six year old male who comes into the office over the past two weeks without any injury or trauma he reports he has been wrestling around with a coworker he was unsure of that caused the injury he reports he was also doing work on his knees replacing a toilet and that may also be causing the pain there is no mention whatsoever in these records the initial officer says it all been a rash of a combative assailant and you're talking by a nurse whose husband is a police officer who knew mr taylor personally and had seen him several times between these incidents socially at home where he admits he complained about his need i think that that in of itself speaks volumes for what the commission was focusing on the initial medical records don't show anything about a combative fifteen year old who threw that he was trying to arrest he says he was wrestling with a coworker purview their specialty to make that decision and i don't think that they're pointing out that there was a discrepancy in the date of that report i don't think that's a manifest error if there was that was not the sole focus of their decision