he walks out and he's fine that just there's no rational way to make the sense of that of that circumstance that's what this case holds us with your pretty help the respondent put that issue t twelve pages were thirteen pages of our decision talking about his two thousand and four injury and settlement and and stated that his motivation is suspect because he did go back to work as a hard worker but but you know the motivation here think you have to understand the here's the arbitrator hearing the evidence in that case she gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt in a sense by awarding t t d up until the day that dr soriano examined hey we don't know if the doctor had seen this man a month earlier he might have concluded that he could have returned to work then he could have seen him a month after the injury and arguably could have concluded based on the exam finals he could have returned that i'm doing what i'm doing one i don't think the plaintiff was credible and she found three specific instances where she said he wasn't credible she points him out her decision in the commissioner firms those findings so that's part they didn't believe the point and  that obviously hurts his case and then also she goes to great lengths to say why she accepted the opinion of dr soriano over that of dr fulbright and part of the did she say of all four bytes opinion it would seem to me that she in the commission based on the reliability of the history the accuracy and completeness of the history he receives and if they are if that's not the case and his opinions could be wrong i then proceeded to say well did you know that this guy had an injury in two thousand four made a claim was off work two years was taken by couldn't all this sort of stuff i asked him about that he says no i didn't know about that if you look at page thirty four of his deposition a quote quote dr if mr gagne i had back pain in the weeks prior to the alleged june thirteenth two thousand and eleven and these pain complaints were so severe he felt he needed to take by could and might or could that indicate that the back problems were related to the original two thousand and four injury doc answer yes that opinion supports the verdict this isn't a case where the treating doctor's opinion is only supportive of the claimant and only supportive of inferences favorable like that answer he gave to me supports the verdict here's one page thirty three and i'll quote quote question the surgery you propose is to treat the degenerative changes that l three for correct answer yes question if mr gagne on previously entered his in two thousand and four falling off a building injuring his lumbar spine develop ridiculously was off work for nearly two years had a positive discreet gram at all three four then settled the case for thirty five percent of the whole person permanent disability continued to have back pain on and off up till the time he saw you doctor in your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty might or could the condition you treated be causally related to the two thousand and four back  yes i mean that opinion supports the verdict i don't see how you can suggest that it doesn't i even got him to say at another point page twenty eight i asked him quote ok and the problems you've located are described at all three four are if i heard you correctly longstanding changes rather than acute changes answer that's correct question ok now can the degenerative changes of the type you see in mr gagne on spine try to point out some of from unease of his testimony but value of said that even though fulbright initially supported the claim and direct he made a number of concessions under cross examination including the fact he was not aware of the history of the serious back injury he had a few years earlier that's true so this is up to the commission where the credibility is at that's how i see it that's exactly what he's asking you to do except one doctor versus another and there's another weakness in dr fulbright's testimony mr robin asked him a hypothetical question and in that hypo to which i objected he asked he asked him to assume that the claimant had had no disabling back pain after the two thousand  he did have his say one back thing if you look at the settlement contract from his zero four injury was off work for two years or nearly two years sol you know hypothetical based on unproven evidence or inaccurate evidence can be disregarded or the answer to that question be disregarded and i cite the horrific horrific sorensen cases in my brief for the idea that medical opinions based on an accurate or incomplete evidence can be given little or no weight and so that principle weighs in here as well you are saying certainly use that argument but you know there's three specific instances where the arbitrary says i don't believe the claimant he says he didn't know he had permanent directions following his last injury well that's silly i mean he was off work for several years it was three and a half years after the claim that he settled that case finally he changed jobs going from being a union ironworker to a truck driver and the arbitrator said well you surely knew you had permanent workers directions or you wouldn't change the job and the doctor's records who treated him from two thousand and four two thousand and five are all in evidence dr smucker you see right in there that he plays permanent worker strips and so he wouldn't be unaware of the fact that he had those restrictions happens he leverage those restrictions into getting a bigger settlement that's the point of restrictions lead to more money when it comes  before this injury claimed he was in there telling the doctor that he had back pain for which he was taken by couldn't we call and he was getting it illegally from friends and and others rather than from doctors and he was chastised by his treating doctor saying hey that's illegal knock it off and yet the claimant gets on the stand to arbitration hearing and says he hadn't even seen a doctor for his back in the last two years nobody's going to forget it you go to the doctor's office and the doctor jumps all over you and tells you you're  breaking the law for getting illegal drugs and you can certainly construe from that the claimant didn't tell the truth that arbitration and he also says he well he had no need or reason to be taking narcotic medicine in the weeks before the turn claim there's evidence in the record the very first day he comes to work for my client he's having back pain and he asks a fellow worker for vibe that he asked this guy two times in the two weeks before the the  i'm taking medicine because i'm addicted not because i'm in pain but he didn't say that so he also said he hadn't seen a doctor for pain in the last two years and he hadn't said that and he hadn't been taking narcotic medicine so i think you're entitle to and i just don't see how mr ron get over that bar i think there is enough conflicting evidence in this case both medical and credibility of the claimant that the verdict should be supported under a manifest weight standard situation is that while there the picture got too much money back two thousand for now we're not to let him bamboozle to the commission again and that's not what happened this is a man who did work started work for two years but then tried it was to his credit tried to go back to do to work and the record in this case shows before he was doing heavy art work but when this happened everything stopped there with him and that's the rule the case they had to work injury that that caused him to be disabled and credible on causation as far as the uterus answer the question credibility is the two doctors and i think dr rice situation clearly is enough to sustain our substantial burden that no other