room and he began what would become a recurring theme when he went to the hospital had a hard time explaining what if anything happened to him specifically he told the hospital that he out something with a crime so his testimony is contradicted by all of the totality of the everything including his own statement from his own physician his own medical records nobody of events that we are going to pick this case for a case we're we're going to say we're going to forgive their requirement if there was ever a case where they would have helped themselves by bringing a doctor for the say you know there's some questions here how do you in general that's like asking a doctor in a more vehicle accident can be in a motor vehicle accident injury or back yes and but then he goes on to say but it didn't happen in this particular case so there's slicing and splicing a small bit of what he said stretch at the very very minimum dr frock oh it's not high up the surgery or the surgery and the condition of the beam to the accident in question there's no question about that not my doctor not my section call weir's the chain of events leading back to a specific time and place you don't really need this for the sake of argument you don't really need medical test waitlist have a limb and i'm not in general no but in this case yes because number one you're not dealing with a condition that will a person but could say this slab lesion or hair whatever it is that's clearly related to the mechanism of injury this is the type of case because of the nature of the injury itself that lends cite from his from the record of pitch one fifty three judge where he says from the evidence what i have supposed not related i believe right before that is when the question was apologetic about that in general  scene like this is something that comes on as a result of the single currency testified to versus something that could come out over a long period of time or been there for years particularly since this gentleman only been working for us for a temporary assignment here and i believe that is not something a lay person to come up with them oh by the solve that it's quite different than somebody being visibly at the bottom of a ladder having obviously just fallen this bleeding or l person who could draw a conclusion that there would be a possible relationship there this is the type of case that lends itself to the requirement that it would have been a really good idea if he would have brought it back or for we go ask the two guys that were working with him on the date of the accident i mean we haven't is there for court from december the eighth two thousand and nine that at the start of the workday he was fit for duty by the end of that workday it says he's no longer fit for doctor's appointment and then say oh he didn't get her the day of work i mean it's it's just ludicrous what do you make of your opponents argument that the reference to the right bear mysteriously surface for the first time at the trial  testified ok and so the case is not closed and we go and take that position so during that period of time approves or open why didn't they just go and ask that you guys are working with them because he believe that we did prove it through his testimony and then the admission of dr cracow and then they had an obligation to go back and dispute with the sat and because it's not inconsistent with the medical records  so you're saying that they have to go back and dispute that information of this what little boy in a situation where somebody testifies credibly what happened because and then the doctor admits yeah that's what happened it's work related he despite the fact said he didn't then the commission clearly disagreed with what dr rocco said in that regard and which point they had an opportunity say oh no this is not what he did but they did because what happened was he was working with the they knew what the events for i don't think that their obligation then just stops to continue their investigation when they had every possible opportunity to do it previously you know so and i believe the penalty for yes so we're just there defense come in they no longer happen because we permit his testimony about what he was doing we asked the doctor you read it was related and so that point why does the employer then get off the hook by not doing anything further i mean they have testimony from history but not that it's what he was doing was not documented specifically in the records but the writers that meant that he was doing his job activities it's not that you know he denied using five bars or anything like that i mean they just he didn't back that very specific case so then they had every opportunity to go i walked out of dr proctor's office with a transcript that he doubled down he said you know and in here just so it's clear what exactly i'm citing from page one of the three of the record question ok in the hypothetical question goes on to the next question based upon the history that mr brock gave you when you presented few in the summer of two thousand and nine is it still your opinion that his condition of all being this is not related to his employment with the work construction answer yes from the evidence i have and from what he said yes that does not provide or depriving employer of a basis for it but i in this case i mean it's clearly not not  something other than a general proposition from a doctor that in general only on private are composite interethnic we all knew that before we came here today that it happened in this case where's the evidence of the factor saying that's what happened in this