doctors on care on the other hand in my opinion and actually more in my opinion just read it we just reported very much beat around the bush just to this point he's more than willing to give us the somewhat irrelevant fact that  conclusion is wrong because dr carroll's conclusion basically also one of the most important parts i believe is that if the arbitrator was in some ways misled by was saying we know that three essential deficiencies with regard to dr carroll's report dr kara only really acknowledged readers report you think that the only physical activity that mr nor performed was driving he referred to the infamous question to dr carroll's report includes a section where he discusses his conclusions and then a section where he discusses he answers a series of questions propounded by defense counsel i refer to them with a question to did the petitioners job duties of february twenty seven twenty two of driving his truck and eventually quote just not feeling well  perception based on distance it had to be less than half an hour it her there's two different things i'm talking about the exertion the same day there's also the peaks or sion which was the day before when he was levering three to four thousand pounds of rebar using some kind of i forget what kind of levers exactly he main the big thing and think that it was more than twenty four hours before but there was a continuing history of other research since the day of the event he had to secure a load when he first got to his truck again real steel that inconsistency between the testimony of the claimant and why in the arrhythmia a curse there's also another factor still effective for your plight is it well documented history of a regular cards going back many years before he went to made in a little more detail in december twenty five he didn't remember is first observation but he pretty much seems pretty much the same thing in twenty five yes and we feel that those things do show that physical exertion  heartier and that's all i can say now i said right before what is right before you have to be ten seconds before or can it be twenty minutes and in my perception that is still close enough in time and the symptoms arise well he's just a body ever  he was not asked to give a deposition it's my understanding he had some personal individual personal problems so we did not give a deposition so what he said is what is there a fear it is not disputing  seconds i think i think in the whole history of things i think it's rational that there continues to be a connection his vision went out and began to feel these things within a fairly short period of time after the money and this is where it occurred and i all i can do is estimate based on geography how far away he was and that's when it happened i think it's close enough and i think the evidence is there the circumstantial evidence is there that it was close enough and furthermore this i keep going back to this county test one case where the man didn't even i have a history of this is only certain he was operating a snowplow for long hours general rule that's applicable to all persons with preexisting conditions that's what you're sort of trying to do here every case causation has to be established individually doesn't that ok obviously but i feel like dr beck did establish the and he says that he sees no relation between the events of february twenty sixth and february twenty seventh and that onset rather he said that multiple studies indicate that in people with norcross's medical condition noted st james hospital at that time or his need for medical treatment at that time or thereafter now it's important in this case when we look at the fact that the commission chose to discount peer relation of course it wasn't the next thing you know it was approximately twenty eight hours later three years later he really addressing the issue and this note is even more important states quote he was driving skill truck and apparently in the process of loading and then on loading the steel now listen what he says what he says next with regard to causation and how important the timelines he states grew if he was doing it right before the onset of the symptoms now i can't define exactly what the next thing we know we know is or right before the event but i can tell you that i don't think it means while driving twenty five miles away and monique and it certainly is not our burden to prove that and most of all he certainly it certainly was the commission's province to make that determination and that house is relying on what he feels that maybe it was the commission's problems to judge is exactly the type of issue their charge interacts rickey's with with way whether right before means twenty five minutes in this case or not with regard to the county of castle his counsel citing that not for any legal precedent or a legal doctrine but rather as a matter of forensic dog that's a case it was decided thirty years ago and it involved different exertions over a different time frame in a different environment involving a different individual and with a different medical profile so to state save it thirty years later that that case is a piece of forensic dog means that this case must be decided this way is to say that the differences all those differences are in consequential and it's also say that medical science has remained stagnant over the intervening thirty years now that the final argument is this idea of bias counsel has i think it's proper to discuss the facts and law and that you believe support your case but i think we see fair argument into a way dr back versus dr carroll interview dr carole more favorably dr pax conclusions were clearly inconsistent with the teacher's own testimony at trial the case was decided on the merits it was he perceived as being a net ischemic event as being a deciding factor is what i was trying to get yet and i think that was a mistake and i and i understand it the commission affirmed it but i think the commission missed the point t  physical exertion but the essential factor is that dr carroll's report well he says that the events of the two days two did not cause this he never discusses any event any physical exertion other than driving the only physical exertion ever mentioned in all the pages of his report is the word driving we don't know he never says that the rebar thing from the day before when it's too far to be connected or than any of the other physical exertion that the man testified to were too far so that was the first thing and he doesn't exist he doesn't discuss the physical desertions he doesn't discuss the question of whether physical exertion can cause  point and when i finally started by this point the thing that bothered me and may have caused it to be put there in the first place and to do with the fact that arbitrary only only commented about the fact that the latter comment