a degenerative condition in his lumbar spine that required a long bar fusion the way we know all of this is because this matter went to trial on september th two thousand and twelve and those matters were legally unusual the commission affirmed and they found the at the claimant lack credibility citing evidence that the claimant had been using two separate identities was employed by another employer countrywide during a period of time he was alleging he was medically and able to work and filed a nd claim for worker's compensation benefits against countrywide alleging an injury was back in august th even when he claimed he didn't have a chaff so why would the commission give any credibility to his testimony and he thinks it's my position that that only affords credibility on limited issues and if we could go back in treated forthrightly by my own client and during the cross examination of became apparent to be that while i was about to take a position that my client had been without were for real time and had been without new decision at that time that i may not be able to continue with him ethically and i asked the court for a period of time to make that decision when we return the manner in which it was decided to handle this was that he w and we believe rightfully we would you all request for relief from the core consequently it is our position our initial position or that no matter what facts came to be in this case there was no authority of the commission to render any decision based upon or to seek or to see can garner that by the time i had showed up for the nd hearing date had given due in proper notice to the arbitrator of my would drop by a formal petition by a courtesy email and as well the counsel i showed up at on that day with the intention that we would just do the matter of housekeeping which was and instead i was confronted with the garbage trade of position that would be prejudicial to explained that despite the beginning of a process requesting review of them that the appellate court held that it was within the rights of a petition utterance is closed and then you'd have the right to withdraw your petition is it your position that is my position ok and that is not contrary to civil law which only qualifies one was ability or absolute right as it's called to dismiss the is already there there is no prejudice should this person change their mind should another attorney come in should this matter be revisited all of that which has been developed still exists in the permanent record there is no prejudice  i'm just any authority side here talks to the timing as to when dismissal can occur during the commencement see being that the duster or the workers compensation commission itself can only act within the powerful order of the to it by statute it is my position that the statute that speaks to this topic says that i the party is the nothing in there that then in turn says that however once brought it cannot be retried there is nothing in there that gives any arbitrary or the commission discretion to  you have a you made a request to have the matter reviewed can i withdraw that they ruled yes you can and they they made it then they analogized it to the civil system where everybody has case and the rules specifically set this off so we see this i'm qualified right if you simply isn't true i didn't read the statute in the way you did and you would certainly know better than i but  issues clearly i do so so moving on to that the court demands that i nonetheless proceed with the case which i did so what did the arbitrator do  i'm not going to report a rose i'm not going to rule on your request that there be attorney fees or penalties over warded based on the fact they haven't complied with that prior award i'm not going to make any findings regarding whether or not the petitioners her condition is causally connected to that which was previously a it was more the other matters though there was testimony by countrywide that your client claimant was working for them and that actually not the only testimony by countrywide was by someone who could not speak to the personal identity of my client believe you probably work for countrywide and i believe you probably were for countrywide for the brief period of time that they printed out those piece of paper but it anybody testified to that from countrywide no they printed out a couple of run sheets not  least of which made no sense because some of the run sheets were for analysis and since you know that was way in advance of what they were saying was the word accident but certainly of the commission found that it was the same person and he was perpetrating  fraud you have to concede biggers and his credibility doesn't yes i do concede that let's go to what might be yours from this argument what about the commission's denial of penalties and attorneys fees for the companies favor to pay the additional one thousand dollars a because it's still a bad review so we pay the award when we see that everything else that's not contested it is will be the uncontested portion we think the contested portions been settled and we're not going to high honor the award for prospect of medical care  the judge said i don't want to hear any testimony from anybody about why this stuff hasn't been paid or whether it's been paid i accept that as fact and there's no excuse for not being paid so i was  assessment of your life as a boy it's an overarching issue that has nothing to do with his credibility nor can nor would the commission be in a position to by reason of my client credibility have any ability to say that he doesn't that that the care he received following the initial ward for the same body parts for the same prospect of medical care that was awa or should not be awarded to him as being under labor in other words if my client he had committed murder two years after this if my client had robbed the bank two years after this if my client had been guilty of tax fraud two years after this if my client had basically been proven to be an untrustworthy person none of that is appropriate evidence contrary to the un rebutted medical testimony of he is physician that the care that he that a minor bills for follow up medical care consistent with the prospect of a war to pursue fusion surgery should be awarded by the same token  they had the full ability with an eye in the to come in and say that there was an eruption in the causal connection because of the new work injury which they only proved by an application out of the the   after reviewing this opinion along with the morales opinion i determined that this was one complete record because it involved the same petitioner seeking benefits for the same injury essentially further and part of the reason why i think and one mar the exact same thing the dr mcnally was recommending and what they were seeking benefits for so given the to tell you the services i think yes absolutely this is not innuendo this is fact established in the record to recover the same benefits for the same injury under two different names at the same exact time had we known that this was the same person who had been in a position i believe counsel mischa's this it is brief to file a motion to consolidate these actions but we weren't in that position because this was allegedly a different person we had to establish through our own hearing the evidence before the court today and that includes you know the evidence of this perpetual behavior now  address quickly the waiver issue as well the counsel suggests that he has now waived his his right to bring his motion to withdraw argument before the court today i believe that exhibit a fourteen and a sixteen you'll see that the only indication on the petition for review was a jurisdictional argument it's not raised in the state of exceptions it has nothing to do with the ability for him to for the specifically limited purpose of counsel determined whether or not he was fit to continue to represent his client he posed an ethical dilemma to the to the arbitrator and for that basis only was a friend matter was decided it was suspended the ones you contested medical expenses was the reason for not paying what i can tell you that one of the reasons is that it created a dilemma once we discovered that said he might not actually be since you know so that the court may know the going back to the issue of fraud fisher mentions you know several cases that the courts have decided that one where petitioner is committed a fraud the fraud home essentially reopen the proofs now there's no question that you have a right to breed in evidence and fraud is it related to the relief here essentially you would be setting a very dangerous precedent to allow the recovery for petitioners to perpetual yes but you know i believe your standing force having won that every single issue all the way up here except for the fees and the to the heart of all the issues in this case  him a couple of issues are created when we talk about nineteen g number one there's no real there's no way to enforce prospect of medical care as far as the excuse for not honoring the st award despite their concessions that nothing was up on appeal and nothing has been even to this present time that they were contesting that they left on paid they now they're now saying now saying that is because we don't know who to write the check to and that might work out as of december two thousand and fifteen post a september two thousand twelve award when they say for the st time they realize they could raise that argument but it doesn't fly for all of the years preceding as well there is a rule of the ca argument here a rule of the case issue and clearly the entire every adjudication of causal connection accident nature and extent prospect of medical care in addition to the bills in the t that was by the way found adjudicated to be due up till september th two thousand and twelve september th two thousand and twelve it's irreconcilable with logic to think that this person couldn't be in the same physical condition on absolutely nothing including just plain now ruling out attorney it's just plain not a ruling on whether causal connection continue and just plain blanket lee assuming that he must have been employed before the pay checks yet at countrywide and their orders do nothing and you must have been employed after the paychecks countrywide so we should be nothing or without any medical evidence that since he had or filed a claim for accident on august th that that must have interrupted some causal connection or shame on him he didn't tell us about it or didn't tell us a boy or a bought it or is using a different name when it happened therefore everything just plain can't be and i would just ask your honour's to i used to do they have a right to do that by i don't know i there or there may be such a case but in my case i've got simply you are work for  another employer and you denied on direct that you did you had a nother accident you died on the wreck that she did but that's those so now we know that this guy is less than however were at the table with things that he's not supposed to even testify about without medical testimony that and all the medical testimony about his capacity none the less is credible none and none the less is an rebut it and is it really unusual for a human being to work despite their doctor's advice when they can and it isn't and in this case if they wanted to make it bigger than that they shouldn't take it out of it taking it out of an issue they said to the arbitrator i am not here going to fight and that's another thing the stipulations of the parties are the exactly what we're arguing here is should be used to support this opinion we stipulated that whether my client was physically able to work would not be an issue it's only all those things that lay in his client were denied the opportunity to put into evidence to support to test all of those things and and say for the lack of down you shouldn't be awarded t t d you shouldn't be consolidated now so your time is up thank you very much thank you council both for your arguments in this matter