surgery records which he relies on when he says there's no disk material left from that prior certainly that could have been dislodged as dr kennedy suggests so i think he misreads that i think he also ignores the objective contradict dr dolls reading where he says that the no no just material could have possibly been dislodged to cause these symptoms second i think he ignores the objective evidence of record in particular the c t mileage gram which tissue rather than the rear curtain fragment that was one of the that was one of the things he did say yes dr kennedy reviewed that and said that he that based on his review of of those those films i mean how do you explain meth in such a terrible condition i think tooth two things one i would say that that with the video surveillance showed did not did not in any way relate to the restrictions that were found on the functional  evaluation or or what the the restrictions for a place by dr kennedy in other words the restrictions that were placed and what the f c c found were that he would that he had limitations on lifting more than thirty pounds  see a parent obvious discomfort when the when the physical therapist reviewed the the surveillance video she did point out several things that she found to be consistent now they were more they were more subtle findings and observations but she found  from the very outset of complaints that he was complaining of symptoms down the right way this is well documented from early on throughout the course of of of the rocker to multiple providers and  consistently second to be able to discount that there's something going on causing the causing the symptoms down the right leg you have to ignore this the sci fi evidence you have to nor the f c c findings and you have to ignore th it would have no doctor da was not treating treating mr mccain he only saw him as an evaluating physician he saw him but he was referred by another physician that was treated dr don no dr da was only a section twelve therefore because he says he made a good recovery from his prior injury i don't find him proud of all i think that that that conclusion kind of right out of the gate shows shows the tenor of where the arbitrariness was looking at in terms of mr mccain condition i don't think there's anything to support what the arbitrator was saying in this regard he was saying i don't believe him because i'm going to possibly gone back to do the full duty work he points back to the restrictions from the prior treatment from dr rastus but there's nothing in the rocker to suggest that he had had any ongoing problems he'd eat he testified that he made a good recovery that he was doing well weaned off of his medications and he was ready to go back into the was already critical of what mr mccain was saying i think that that's more based on speculation and and because of that that that really belies the commissions of credibility determination at first that brief there is a sentence there that states petitioner specifically testified that he cannot stand longer the ten or fifteen minutes that sentences presented without citation and during my preparation i was unable to find appropriate citation so i ask that the court ignore that sentence that being said the record contains sufficient evidence to support the complaints of pain and other maladies that did not match what he also examined on the surveillance tape he also had the benefit of other medical records  i believe dr gahl suggested that it was one explanation for what he was seeing hah there's was also and i've since object to findings to support his symptoms and again of course he looked at that surveillance tape where it was clear that the titian or at least demonstrated on the pay or lacked he did not demonstrate that kind of response to the pain that he was claiming he walked up twenty some odd stairs twenty minutes pacing on his balcony talking on the phone again i believe there is sufficient evidence and the logical inference the commission made was that mr mccain was not suffering pain he was representing so i believe the doctor performed those tests who suggested that there was a lesser feeling of the l five nerved his opinion if you then follow dr dole's leader opinions is irrelevant because d dr kennedy said i think petitioner injured his s one nerve well yes one nerve was not tested in the diagnostic studies that they then point to so in other words you have a radiology study that says there's a lesser filling it l five the radiologist says that could be from the prior surgery recommendation for surgery was never in his medical notes never in the correspondence sent to petitioners counsel never discussed with the petition raised only during his deposition for the first time so i think it's not just dr dole's opinion it is supported by the other physicians who did evidence and with that i will beg my leave and thank you very much for your attention