this case involves essentially a noble condition was fairly minor and significant but of a very disputed leftover condition that first was treated by my client with no medical care about five months after he noticed an initial incident when he read the transcript in this case will see that he worked in the field on a tree trimming crew and has about fifteen years back in the fall two thousand and six he was up in a bucket drop the arbitrator spying the fact that there was no medical records to support any injury in october relied upon one record of a family physician my client went to because he thought that was the employer's d send their fire work physical there are six other histories provided in that month when he started his treatment six histories to six separate providers that say specifically what happened that he felt a pop and for the next five months continue to work gradually the pain worsening to the point where he sought medical care about five and half months later didn't you give notice to his employer that he sustained a work related injury you roger at t got his treatment the diagnosis is two things we do numb our right to within two weeks it shows a sub scapulars tendon a partial tear all the physicians dr hoffman the one who first charted these problems have been here about a month or so  girl six separate physicians and physical therapist and radiologist dr moody dr scott the physical therapist the pain specialist they all took histories even at the radiology only to get the history they're getting it from him ok so defense attorney wrote up the commission made no independent analysis here it's just a rubber stamp of the commission they just say we ducked arbitrators findings with no further dish discussion so what's your explanation for the delay that's he's a tough guy he's a mean  guy that leave you said so therefore if you wait five months that's that's always ok i don't suggest it's always ok what he testified to very clearly is that he gets strains pushes pills this is really hard work and it gradually got worse to the point diagnose an impingement syndrome and what we have we have a case where there is no other history of how this man's clinical impingement syndrome develop other than his will and that's the reason we filed two cases because early on they told us our feel are traveling management corporate employee he doesn't remember this that's the reason i subpoenaed in his crew supervisor mr cashmore who is not deemed not credible by the arbitrator with regard to that polgar incident and we have an arbitrator who doesn't make an independent  write up of their findings may just take the arbitrator's decision it's written by the defense counsel you have to your honor's in this case look very closely at the statement in the records that says there are no medical records to support an october injury that's just ignoring the six records that are there from six separate providers besides the family family doctor said he has no will shoulder injuries but hear about a month as and that would go back to mark if question is manifestation regard hoffer we thought that based upon the six other records from all very learned more specialized positions back the hof in the sports physicals and internal medicine physician if you or he sees everybody that comes into his office he sees  arbitrator did penalize this man for waiting to get care this is very very hard work your honour's and i would submit that though he did wait five and a half months to get here that is not an unreasonable decision when you take when you've seen he worked in this position seventeen eighteen years before this incident this isn't a case where you have six or seven complicated different histories every history gave initially same but what's most important in this case is if the arbitrator says he's not credible arbitrator saying that by looking at one record from someone who was not an orthopedist who is not a surgeon who is not a pain specialist and doesn't necessarily have a lot of time or practice to take very expensive history also as it is dragging but he adopted now it's a lot easier in these cases to adopt a short decision and not a decision where a man lost his job because this employer doesn't provide like today and he's been off work for ninety weeks by the time you can get the case to trial which is what we had so you have a disputed amount of if you make it work for more than twelve weeks the id w contract with wright says you're out the door you're done he has an incentive to do his work and stay at the job as long as you can i would submit your honor to all the court in the panel th hear the arbitrator's decision was that was an easy thing to do is just to say oh there's no history it's five and a half months old but if we look at the chart and we look at what we look at what we have for no causal relationship of the shoulder condition and seems once he was taken off work is although in a way this is this case isn't about the oh it was very convenient drafting by defense counsel to say or with regard to the second report we just have another winter but if you read this transcript mr also you may respond yes he said there was no evidence of the two thousand and six accident and i would maintain that that is accurate why is that with regard to the timeframe between october two thousand and six april two thousand and seven there's no medical the and my client would point out again that large gap in time at roughly six month period from october two thousand and six april two thousand and seven if he was in pain i understand counsels arguing that now is the tough guy and he would have toughed it out but it stands to reason that if you're in pain you seek some kind of medical treatment or who was in the report to the company you know or prove that i don't have that information or not or certainly not with any record with regards to the that's the very first history out of this in your workers mouth what does he say no mention of the two thousand and six accident moreover this is a doctor that was picked by the injured worker so this isn't a doctor that can be discredited he's not and i this is this is the injured workers choice and in that initial treatment record there's no mother gave them up with the problem i believe that i'm not sure your honor i don't believe the record really gets into much detail about  believe he just pushed through that pain for a six month period of time that he's that tough consider his job duties as a tree trimmer he testified that he's thirty forty feet in the air in a bucket in a truck and he's holding tree branches and chainsawing with  other arm very labor intensive work he testified that he would you know drag the branches after they were cut put him into the tree trimmers very labor intensive work if he was having pain and i understand consummate hands this is a gradual onset pointing out the lack of any kind of treatment within that six month period of time goes further to discuss kevin catch mark and while he might not specifically say kevin catch mark is not credible he says dan mcmillan is credible the two  friend of the injured worker there is testimony to that fact they hung out socially together they were drinking buddies or at least went to a bar a few times together there's a social relationship there mr cashmore testimony also is not specific he can't tell you the date this happened he can't tell you where they were when this happened he just says oh yeah i seem to recall the injured worker telling me this my question is where would other witnesses be than testimony was from the injured worker that he had a girlfriend he had a mother that he lived with where were these individuals with her testimony to talk about yes mr karnes came home every day saying oh my arm hurts and it's all related to this two thousand and six x and the only witness we have is kevin question and he has accident incident i should say isn't specific there is no event it's basically his argument that his injuries came to a boiling point is two thousand six hundred that is came to a boiling point in two thousand and seven to the point that he needed to seek medical care so if we're going to investigate whether that's true we have to then again look at the two thousand and six arguments i just made that the two are in a woman here so is his argument that because something was reported in two thousand and seven because they are aware of an accident it's cause symptoms i wish there was more testimony about this april incident but the testimony that is there which is all we have to go on is that the mr current is alleging a gradual onset of the two the decisions of the lower courts were not against the manifest weight of the evidence that there is a sufficient basis for the lower court's decision i rely on my brief at this time you have to be very careful because we are not reviewing who are court's decision mean there's nothing there's nothing to do and i write about to respect the content of the records not to say there are no records to support an injury ignores all the records except for one that said it started in march and webb is precious they can show when he waits five and a half months and working out with weights and then lane said it's an activity which would have contributed to any and impeachment syndrome to the children the testimony that was the question by the defense attorney asking that question because he's mor