two different histories of accident one that the petitioner testified to under oath and the other that different versions that he told the doctors in this case it's our opinion the petitioner cannot be deemed credible witness if there's only one outcome to this that the industrial commission was wrong when it says that odd that when it talks about the exact mechanism of injuries on clear the  experienced a significant jolt no where is that found in the record where the petitioner testified to as he fell from the cab directly to the ground we read that for months on the principle it is within the province of the mission to direct the credibility of witnesses in the way to get them to the testimony so you alluded to a conflict between his testimony under oath and the medical records that's right why can't the commission choose to believe this testimony under oath because i don't i believe when someone has two different versions of what happened there's only one outcome can come out of that and that is that that is not quite a fall when the industrial commission is viewing the credibility of witnesses it's generally a he said she said and so then they are all in a position to say this  testified at trial and he said another thing when he went to every single doctor that he treated or at least that's the way the doctors recorded that's the way the doctors will be in your experience the doctors always recorded exactly what the patient says i think if the doctors were told that he fell and i think where we get that is that after we take that position of our expert dr jim cohen he testifies that trauma certainly can be an accelerator of this condition ostrow threat of him which was severe degenerative two no one could get a fight any objective trauma to that help it was the degenerative help which really both doctors in the end sad even dr chase in the treating physician sad if because now we have to look at a petitioner who has not given credible testimony and he cannot be deemed credible on the issue of accident and that goes to every facet of this case including causation dr chasen sad when he tied the saw i wouldn't be surprised if he scraped away the last bit of cartilage well what was the basis for dr chase's opinion on that and the basis was he was relying on an got out of trouble and slipped on staff and body twisted that's right really markedly different ways because of that because i think when we look at the what the doctors talk about this about this disease that it's a progressive disease it doesn't get better it never cures without a joint replacement it can be accelerated and it can be celebrated by direct trauma to the pup that's what dr cohen testified to and in accident then it odd i wouldn't be surprised if he scraped away the last bit of cartilage in his bases that again rise the petitioner statement that he was pain free prior to the accident but had pain after the accident and that's when i think you also have to go is that even credible because the petitioner will all of a markedly limp before the accident and there are this accident well back to jason had indicated at least in his deposition arm that he was physically capable of returning to work if he wanted to he would let him return he did not return and  drop it was newman drive a truck and they didn't know any major problems in that group but they did test and they did test him for some internal problems i think it was hypertension and some other issues and they cleared him for a one year injuries on clear that nonetheless he experienced a significant jolt is against the manifest way to be evidence because the evidence is and it is not for the industrial commission to assume broad to say well we're going to speculate one way or the other component self i mean that's a basic tenet of workers compensation that speculation the commission was also wrong because dr chase and clearly testified in his deposition that this man was physically capable of returning to work and if he wanted to he would have let him and the petitioner did not return and that deposition was begun on march twenty third two thousand and n had never actually existed the guy had some problems with his feet over the last ten years he rocked like a doc on occasion he said that was not constant if you look at his right intruder records for the two before years prior to this there's no reference to any lunch issues no reference to any great difficulties there's no reference to even the rocking like a duck because of the feet so there's nothing in the medical records and that's what we have from the most objective standpoint there's nothing but the years by on the passing road like it's two ninety four travel some of them forty five fifty miles per hour it moves like this as it's going it's not a continuous running video that's why even the arbitrator in this case mentioned that the video was not  in that i assume that's what he said but i think it's immaterial and for this reason that everybody agrees that before the accident the guy had no pain in his hip there's no evidence of pain innocent before and except for the heart thing video ok which is not broken after the accident we definitively have a pain in the head which we didn't have before we even have the doctor admitting the pain started with this accident that he couldn't decide their own way and he couldn't decide is it from the back is it from the head because you can have some overlap of the paint is to be if it's a back injury versus if he couldn't decide which one it was the commission noted he can't make up his mind on which one to do it as so all of they didn't consider to be that probative of and against causation so what we have is we have a guy that's healthy he passes his physical he does his work without missing any time he has this event which nobody disputes there's apparently video on this too which never turned up the trial and we have a dramatic change in the guy's ability to continue working afterwards we have a couple of doctors saying again on the senate and they also said even if you have a bad preexisting condition you know they could help out and replace it unless it's so bad that you need to do that in this case is  i propose again that we were just filling in details and he was filling out the detail of the x and i think from a mechanical standpoint it doesn't make any difference the twisting mechanism which was it was for impact yeah i think the impact is  until we got to trial and they went out during a break and brought it back in so that's was verified exactly what we thought was going on what we were what was going on so again we're yes that you are from the commission's finding i think it's certainly not against memphis where the other as far as the accident is concerned fisher testified that he well it just turned my whole body and i twisted and i thought that the ground of my niece he goes on to say i could not get up period question did you hit that lower stab answer no or you can describe it however you want you can look at the video and you can see what the walk in is dr jason observed him when he was in his office walking with your job or gate bridge interest whether it's a twist or a file does make a difference because this accident was a witness and so it does go to the petitioners credibility and it does go to the veracity and finally on the video there are other people entering and exiting the facility and they are not walking with a weapon so the video shot at like one one hundredth speed or whatever the surveillance cameras shoot these days other people enter and exit that facility and they are not limpy but mr lasik is and he's limping months before the accident