the first case case was tried twice under section one thousand be at the conclusion that of the first nineteen be hearing the arbitrator and then subsequently the commission in essence ordered the parties to agree upon a true independent doctors  look at the case and make decisions going forward it was the in force of there from your perspective the import of that in from my perspective was that the on an arbitrator in the commission both thought that the doctors that were involved in the case of being doctors soriano who performed section fall exam and dr phillips who was the treating physician probably were looking at this the wrong way and the commission was concerned and wanted assess or was it the bun i think it was both i think that the decision was made to him enter into this agreement where the parties would agree on somebody who we're in the record can you point us to that in that establishes the parties agreed to be bound by dr goldberg's opinion where is dead by any stipulation in the record or is there evidence that it was intended to be a binding a stipulation as opposed to a referral knew neither party to put in writing in the record but it would be by now we are operating under that assumption i was certainly operating under that assumption and well there's an assumption take the place of a stipulation i think in this case given the way everything unfolded this was a stipulation we were ordered to do this by the commission both sides agreed to do it there was two pieces of correspondence sent to the dr by a whole parties and there was no one or two ways about it i mean if they had a comeback against me i certainly would have been prohibited from going and getting another i need to come back around that and read evaluation and try to come up with facts that different so if he's being engaged to provide a second opinion why would that in and of itself be binding on anyone it would be binding because i'm through because of the fact that it was ordered  commission to make decisions about what was going forward and that the parties agreed that we would use this doctor we didn't i mean it whether it's a recommendation by the commission i guess we didn't have to do it i could've gotten and i  am my own and you couldn't proceed with the treating physician so you're saying every time there's an agreement on a doctor it becomes by you and the party not everybody agreed to use the same doc and i don't think that's true every time i think in this case when it's ordered by the commission and when there is an evaluation and then a subsequent functional capacity evaluation and then the parties again approach a doctor in order to form has come final opinions i think that's a different situation than you there's a casual conversation in the hallway on the eighth floor of the industrial commission and i say hey you know in order to cut to the chase here why don't we just haven't seen by someone's home see what he said will you alluded to it ordered by the commission is that what happened here or did  make a recommendation you're a traitor made a recommendation which was not changed by the commission the or the arbitrators recommendation was as part of the order and if you didn't in reading the order the arbitrator says no part of this  the claimant claimed that dr goldberg said that he couldn't tell him what his opinion was but looking at how this case unfolded that could very well be because dr goldberg needed more information at the end of that first evaluation he hadn't for he i'm sure he didn't know what his opinion was at that time otherwise he would have ordered enough see eat and said you know i need to see this stuff see and i don't make my own i'm going to my final paintings in terms of what actually happened i don't know that i'm over it was not my doctor i a case that is to say if we were to find for example that the state of the opinion by goldberg was not binding on the parties where does that leave you in terms of the evidence in this case that leaves me with a manifest weight argument and i would argue that i would not have said ok i agree since then and there and i'll sign a letter not on letterhead with you and let's see what this doctor says and i'm quite sure that my opponent would have thought the same way not so well probably don't want to get hung up on the technical elements of the stipulation but i'm sure binding stipulation can't be hey what about this doctor you say yeah is that the functional equivalent of a binding stipulation in this situation i i would say you seem to be saying it is what i think in this case it's different because of  tell you what doctor your client gets to be examined by and they won't listen to the testimony of the doctor they can tell you maybe not overtly but they can say there are certainly doctors where if i get an evaluation i know that the commission well it's probably because the doctors until true three of them and they know that but that's not the question against you i mean if you were they to restrict who you will present is a witness that is or they have to believe him but can they restrict until you the understanding that this was an agreed evaluation that was ordered by the commission and look for what purpose it becomes he was appointed test to render an opinion as to treatment or is the causation because it was for treatment not causation that's only going to aggravate the situation well you know it's interesting because if you look at the the letters that were sent to dr goldberg which we have to evaluate the patient we wanted to try to be as bananas possible and we didn't want to sway him in any way shape or form the commission said for further treatment and dr goldberg gave us the opinions is honest opinions without any attempt to sway from either side you sent two letters and just said for the record you're going to see him please let us ok i think the what i was getting at is i was asking here what opinion was the employee lying and with all the opinions before goldberg gave his unsolicited opinion found that there was a causal connection was there a contrary opinion as to causal connection at that point there is no contrary opinion as to the causal connection we not only had doctors weenie and doctor  continued to deny that he did the medical expenses even without supporting medical opinion in his favor of was if you're correct that's true or you answer this too was goldberg retained to give an opinion as to treatment or because if it was  my understanding was only with regard to treatme across appeal with regard to the initial issue of penalties and what i think is very important when considering these fast no penalties and attorney fees is to look at the entire context of the case  on attorney fees at that time and he went and at that time they were relying on dr soriano with regard to the nine causal connection at that point and quoted within the mainstream of the findings of all the treaters and they were radiologists not involved in this litigation plus the consultation by doctor king that this is totally that this orator totally discounts d conclusion in this particular case and set of facts so it's almost like arbitrator andros was you know really using a lot of restraint in not issuing attorney fees and penalties at that time we made the recommendation that there be an independent doctor what you say and we were agreeable to that but we did not believe that dr goldberg ended up being an independent don that we thought he was going to be evidence by you know all the things that we're talking with are going to get it up doesn't really answer the question was there some kind of a binding agreement stipulation between you and the other counsel in the purdy was that goldberg's opinion would be banging on the  may have been proposed by defense counsel and then but you know you know they don't absolutely certain on that point but well i take it then there was nothing in writing about this this is just a verbal agreement between seems like when the arbitrator assessed the penalties i mean he was very it was almost like going to him an emotional way i believe that his frustration and bit of anger is almost asserted within his decision there as it was his belief that his recommendation that he made even though he was probably cutting them a break and not awarding penalties in the first place and then they kind of violated his rule by not earth whatever you want to call his well you know we're we believe that penalty should be a side us but not for you know this notion of the improper conduct of conduct but more by looking at the actual substantive evidence and said about how the fact that when benefits are terminated you have to look at the doctor's opinion within the context of all the evidence and they felt that it was unreasonable so even though i think that that's what our richard andrew says there may have been a bit of emotional  aspect to it the commission said well you know we're not following an emotional aspect that we're just looking at the facts and we believe that healthy is were appropriate here in i believe that we really was that he was able to work there is no hot i guess there's no causation opinion basically dr goldberg is saying there's nothing wrong with this guy he's making it up so i guess and that it in a way that either is kind of a causation opinion because he's saying that it's all symptom magnification and it's not actually related to the accident because i'm nothing wrong with him but he doesn't say this man needs surgery he has to be off work however it's not related to the work accident well did anybody say that the claim was condition of bil being on your side of the case was not related to the accident did anybody say that i think that caused a should never really became a true issue because even dr soriano said that he's not a surgical candidate and there's not and there's nothing wrong  arbitrator said it was not reasonable for responding to rely on a board certified neurosurgeon and to say that dinosauria was off a lunch and that his opinion didn't make sense dr goldberg i think everybody in this town respects his opinions in terms of alyssa's being honest ethical this before we get over but he actually agrees with everything that soriano said from five years ago so the putting it in the content full context of the case and all the doctors that have looked at this case you know back to soriano doesn't look it is crazy now as you did to the arbitrator when we tried of the first time because dr bill murray is actually agreed that there's nothing wrong with this guy and he should be able to go back to work and that is the symptoms don't make any sense and in terms of whether there was and you know these things are not in the record i understand but let me just say that counsel was not part of those conversations when talking about whether the we would live and die with dr goldberg and i am quite sure that if judgment there was no witness to feel ation is to be by the nature of the over if there is it would not have been the best thing to do in retrospect i should have done that i i put my trust in my opponent and in retrospect i won't  and here today and as as we know you know the intruders decision is not before this court under martin masterly finding it's actually a commission decision that we're looking at so an arbitrator intro says imagine the conversations between the claimed representative and dr goldberg really don't come into play at all when it comes to assessing the healthiness or or or why any decision should be made that there's no evidence in the record that any improper contact was made