morning completed the rest of the shift that day if you read through all of the testimony you'll see that human working outside of his normal territory and he was that work from the moment that he looked at home that weighs against defining your honor i agree that that's i think that's a corrective action of this however i think if you allow that my client is a credible i agree however if he if indeed he reported to mr van slyke was not called as a witness by either myself nor the employer which i would point out the employer has control of mr vance like i don't  and i would have thought that you would bring the supervisor to whom one reported this to arbitration but that's not how this went down in my argument i  was going to point out that they did bring ballast just in to testify in mr jett that minute he wasn't even my client supervisor in the big question he was adamant that he spoke to him on december sixteenth however if you look at the rest of the testimony you'll find that my client was not present to speak to him that day was in a different location and would not have had opportunity to speak to him on that da if you look at the document from which mr jenner testified that it shows december twenty ninth on their support of the date that they'd also points with the same day that the recommendation had been made by dr brown for his him or ice which is consistent with that form as well i think i do not think that mr jett intended to be misleading i don't think that he was trying to  i think he genuinely was confused about what day that he spoke to my client but i looked through all of the medical records from dr brown's office through to of all he claims that he was fine in the morning before the accident which is what his testimony was he didn't say that he had no problems with his back before it's a matter of fact he testified that he had seen the i find it somewhat disingenuous that they point to him saying why was fine that morning to say that i never had any problems before because clearly he did and clearly the records are with the r description which i think i still know this is my personal opinion is i believe my client and i believe this getting in and out of the truck after sustaining a traumatic injury on december sixteenth two thousand and four the act of getting in and out of the truck would aggravate that condition would cause a condition to cost pain if indeed you sustain an injury to your low back and i think it's an a i think that if you allowed my client the reasonable inference that indeed what he stated under oath is true then these records reflect the decision affirming the arbitrator's decision they've they've basically just stamped it moved it on and i still believe that there are other factors in this that th vote well for my client my client was consistent from the time that he saw dr brown on you had an escalation in treatment following this december sixteenth incident he had a m r i scan which had never he had never had an m r i scan order before performed before he followed through with all of the treatment recommendations whether they be made by doctors aro this when he did report this to mr jett about the trucks there's certainly no inconsistency in having pain getting in and out of the vehicle repetitively all day after you sustain a specific injury and it does boil down to credibility cision however it's my position that the arbitrator and commission repeated the same state when faced with all of the evidence not just cherry picking the subject things that look like they may be in the work that the the the final issue that was addressed during the presentation was the inconsistency of the testimony regarding the pain resulting from getting in and out of the truck let me just point out a couple things with regards to that first of all it would not be inconsistent if the pain resulted from getting in and out of trouble had there been a free simple tell you this but we have to look at what  the whole incident then i can't draw the causal connection between his work activity and the problems with his back it's very important for us to keep in mind this case so i would present to you that there are three major issues  testimony to be consistent with the evidence that was submitted injury report and there was also a consistency between dallas jets testimony and the contemporaneous a medical records from dr brown of the stone  no where during his first five visits there any mention of him stepping into all that was certainly reasonable for the arbitrator in the commission to review that evidence and determine that the medical records were most consistent with the testimony of  before this alleged accident it will make clear what the arbitrator meant with the way there is referencing in the briefs and you heard arguments that the arbitrator mischaracterized the evidence when she stated that mr doogan had no complaints before summer sixteen two thousand for review of the evidence and a review of the rest of that paragraph in the arbitrator's decision makes it clear what she meant by those terms mr duncan testified that when he reported to work on december sixteenth two thousand and four he was fine normal everything was fine on cross examination he was asked if he was pain free on december sixteenth two thousand were to which he replied yes when i went to work yes so the arbitrator is making reference to that specific point in time the time immediately before when he claims this incident occurred that he says he was pain free now when you review the medical records you see that was necessarily the truth that was the point behind this statement by the yorkshire clearly the arbitrator wasn't stating in this paragraph mr dugard has never had back pain for what she was referring to was was he having back pain according to his testimony in the timeframe immediately before  alleged accident she found his testimony on this proves the final issue of fact that also deals with credibility is were the medical opinions offered to support the employee's injury being related to an incident where he stepped into a hole made less credible because they were premised on fatally flawed histories again this is a straight question of credibility the arbitrator and subsequently the commission was free to review all the medical records way testimony against other testimonium if you term the nation as to which of the medical providers she and th and evidence supports the arbitrator in the commission's inclusion the arbitrator looked at the information that was given to dr williams dr williams testified that he was not aware of the employee's part prior treatment had you not reviewed any practical records concerning prior treatments of the alleged injury he was not aware of a potentially different history of onset of symptoms specifically getting in and out of the truck in the problem with seat and he was not aware when the degenerative disk disease that ultimately required surgical intervention first became symptomatic dr williams testified that the condition that caused the fusion  necessary was the degenerative changes with this doctor who are not also provide testimony in this case his testimony he stated quote obviously if you felt and provide the history significant lead different than that that oh well i agree to some extent with counsel's remarks of mr volkmar reference i hold as a witness was working with m however it was not working in the same location he was working in the scene so they were not together throughout the course that they are other than it once time and at the end of the end of the day if you look to the testimony in the unloaded my client's truck today at the end of the day it's for is the history for most concern there's there was much made about this in the arbitrator's decision missions a review in  there's if you look at the chiropractor knows beforehand you will see that he did treat with him even i believe the week before but it was a very or sporadic type of treatment that is not inconsistent with him being free in the morning that he showed up for work it's not inconsistent with him having pain getting in and out of the vehicle after