august of two thousand and five full duty return to work after that fool to be returned to work petitioner is laid off with a group of other individuals after that layoff people begin to come back to back tomorrow first in january of two thousand and six martin did the surgery says i can't find anything wrong with you i'm back in three weeks he comes back in march of two thousand and six again january thirty one two thousand and six release again by dr morrow no problems except for the  to indicate that there's any problem with your shoulder and reach and petitioner waits until march twenty seventh two thousand and seven to file an eight a petition under eighty eight seeking medical benefits you  shoulder and the mass is gone that mass that was out your shoulder blade is gone so we're sitting back we're saying ok well we we we got a guy just released brutally terminated with other employees making these attempts to get back into workers compensation by saying that my my i've got something wrong with my shoulder dr mark totally maybe two thousand and seven and then again august of two thousand and seven and again maurice says i can't find anything wrong you're just returning is needed it's not until july  two thousand and nine when the evidence step of dr martin is taken that now responded to some notice well there might be that a cause a connection to this i'm going subjective complaints of pain because maurice says i think you know there's i don't think there's anything wrong but i think i need to look again setting the restriction and it august twenty first two thousand something because in aug twenty first of two thousand and seven there is no request for t t d made there's not there's there there's only eight petitions asking for medical benefits indeed the next petition is filed only asked for medical benefits when he finds a petition october twenty second two thousand and ten he's not asking for t t d he's asking for medical benefits until after the surgery you the commission at the rigid court has indicated that the commission has indicated that one can infer that there may be t t d of this nature of the for example the surgery suggest that it would be likely that he would be isn't coming until two thousand and ten and he says as i examine you in two thousand and ten it seems to be appropriate to take another look see that's how he put it that's two thousand and ten looks year to call say that the condition assisted in the claim and second surgery was cause or live to claimants work there and it just isn't there it has to be there at the same time isn't there it comes after surgery and then the off work no actually the first off work note that i did the record is generous six of two thousand and eleven after the surgery there are there are restrictions there are and these restrictions come significantly and significant period after the surgery after continuing filed that march twenty seventh two thousand and seven eight petition and he only asking for medical benefits nothing be tensions that that suspect script which he says is benefits and tetris a script that predates his full duty return to work so now we are sensitized to what's going on here you keep going back to the doctor keep saying to the doctor something wrong dr keeps telling you i don't find anything wrong doctor does m r i doesn't find anything wrong doctor sent your home i don't find anything wrong and then you come back at the screen saying well the doctor said that i should have some limitations he didn't he said he had limitations before he went back to work full duty so not so now we are we are highly sensitized to the whole course of what's going on here no reasonable person would dispute that our conduct first of all that the evidence here demonstrates that petitioner was a title t t d only from the date of the surgery up until the date of hearing and that our co t throughout has been reasonable in light of the circumstances and that penalties were not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case  my name is michael higgins i am here on behalf of the i believe it is for any reactions that i had there just as that about my time motive i'm here to tell you as we all know that the commission's findings should not be overturned because different interested inferences can be drawn the inferences that counsel tried to point out during his argument we all know this is the manifest weight standard and in order for fighting to get the manifest weight of the evidence an opposite that the injured complaints the current complaints during the second period of t t v are callers they related to his original accident and valid there's no opinion there's no medical opinion office note on august twenty first two thousand and seven that the injured was capable of doing medium level work he was a heavy mechanic by trade media rubble does not meet the job requirements that his employer required him to do so that's the answer yes so i'm at a loss my trying to think why council is arguing that he's not entitled to t t t from that period through the date of arbitration i mean what medical evidence is he relying on i basically want to keep my argument simple as possible his doctor says that the injuries related his doctor says that he should be off and he's being paid t greenies there's no medical evidence to suggest otherwise and that's why i get passionate about this case because there are so many delays i mean if you look at the facts you can draw whatever effects you me you may want but the facts of the facts would clear pla approved until may of two thousand and seven it's a sixteen month period i'm right to be done in a week you know i'm not there is a shooting you know if the insurance company wants to look at it authorize it ok month to month but sixteen months that's completely wants to see an m r i on for gram to see what is really going on two years later that is finally authorized so now we look at two periods of of a failure to authorize one for sixteen months one for twenty four months and any logic would tell you that they had is completely under reasonable while the injured goes through the pain and the treatment that dr morrow wants to actually get down to the bottom of what's causing the pain so finally the m r i is done in september of two thousand and nine and it shows that there's an actual tear in the libra which is connected to the original accident dr mara and the treater so that's actually two thousand and nine when does or when does the employer finally decide to get an amy april sixth april twenty sixth two thousand and ten we're still looking in about another seven month period as is is stated many times  in in may of two thousand and seven that's unconscionable that tamara testified in his deposition when he gave that order on january thirty one two thousand and six to get an m r i for the man he i have no i had no opinion whether was causally related i i had no opinion that's in his the transcript of his testimony i didn't know anything about the shoulder whether resent a condition in their shoulder that was causally related events what his testimony itself suggesting that we should maybe anticipate what the doctor doesn't know or somehow figure out what the doctor doesn't know but more importantly when the m r i was done off w said you're clear i can't buy anything wrong if you come back as needed two years to get an m r i that we thought was not related that suggests to me based upon what's in this record it wasn't there wasn't anything related to the message disappeared to me as was go it but perhaps even more telling is if there's a surgeon see to get it done the death of dr martin isn't scheduled until july two thousand and nine by petitioner