go in a farm in a decision of the commission where the record as we believe shows that petitioner is just entirely uncredible and no reasonable person could look at this record in conclude that she was in fact a credible person in and i understand a lot of deference to the commission versus you arbitrator but i would remind the court that this is a case where the arbitrator did deny the claim and found her not credible and it was reversed to the one by the commission now said to focus on really stem from the medical records and i know there was a comment made in one of the arguments earlier this morning about the significance of what a person tells a doctor when they go in for treatment and how that might be a better indicator of what a person's true history of an accident or condition might be because it's closer to the accident at the time they go when they're not seeking compensation they're seeking medical care to make themselves better and with that more in mind what i would like this court to do is you deliberating the issues in this case is to go back and focus on five dates in the documents that are affiliated with those days because i think those and tell you what th are just a second but i think that those crimes humans really lay out the case that we're making here that this is a situation one of the rare situations where the mantis where the evidence shows the petitioner is not credible and those dates are july  document that i'd like you to look at there in detail is the report that came to documenting data a week prior to her accident where she were we clearly documented back and shoulder problems pain complaints there's a limitation of movement on the right shoulder i think that's a very important point for many reasons the july fifteenth entry with dr duncan that's the date of the purported accident here and i think the critical part of that document is that she makes no complaints related accident or a work related injury on the day of her injury and it's interesting because throughout the medical in this case throughout the statement that she gave to the insurance company are off the ground and she hears a pot and she feels a pop and she has pain that starts face it did not immediately but very shortly thereafter which is the first time in the entire history of this case that those particular facts come out when we two thousand and eight from out of the records from a week before being an accident which he was well i think when we look at the question that was presented to dr bronson he was confronted with the with the medical record of july eighth and he was asked about that and i think the critical part is how he answered the question there were complaints and findings in that visit of july eighth respecting her chest on her arm and her back and he was asked that question does this document change your opinion and his answer was limited to the chest he never spoke about the shoulder he never spoke about the back so while  physical problems that would correlate with what she testified to and arbitration i had a warrant not on the on the back of my shoulder it was painful to touch you couldn't touch it where is it medical it's not in there and with that let me ask you this  accident again it's entirely her credibility to the point where she is not believable because as we said earlier the medical records at the time or in that timeframe following the accident do not support the indication of an accident do was asked remember we've got a lady who's complaining for a period of about six or seven months of shoulder pain shoulder pain shoulder pain she has an m r i in august that shows a lot seems to know such condition degenerative condition over multiple levels o some magnification so you got a consistent descriptions of the accident you've got a failure reporting injury on the day of the injury and shortly thereafter you've got the incident with the fall at the end of july where she claims that the time the treatment i'm standard has been met and she's just not credible and if she's not credible been all that stuff that she told her doctors goes out the window as well and now needs us with our medical opinions that we now have preexisting to again condition which is seriously what the progression of a degenerative condition and it continues to deteriorate and we know from the record of joe i ate fish he had problems with their right shoulder significant enough to cause a limitation a restriction of movement on her right shoulder you and my appreciate that thank you i have not had the chance to listen to those arguments before as counsel has but that is educational on the credibility issue it is a big thing but those first council he went to this july two thousand and eight record it doesn't mention the shoulder some pain in the shoulder area but it also if you look at that record goes on to say because of pain in the chest that is the beginning of that treatment she had a sickness an illness of the chest and a bad cough and that's what started that in the july eighth is the follow up visit for that and it continues that treatment and she mention  pain going into or shoulder or in that area there is no exam done on the field or there is no reference to work activity of any kind or work accident or any type of accident with regard to shoulder there is no mention of the neck and that's why the very next treatment we have is july fifteenth the date of the accident and who incidentally that just happened to schedule that day mean that she did not discuss it were just too about what is not in there there is nothing inconsistent with that history from what she his testified at trial there is nothing inconsistent with history i just have a couple points if she was injured to the extent that she was by this purported action took place where the concurrent medical m seven fifteen seven twenty two seven twenty nine the document that where does she reported a traumatic event where did she give any history at all of a work related accident and more importantly where is there any type of complaint of a physical was her as bad as she represented at arbitration those findings would have been in those medical records and they would appear at seven fifteen seven twenty two seven twenty nine seven thirty we would not heard about those for the first time at arbitration now  there was some discussion here about whether this is a traumatic event or this repetitive trauma type of vent and there were some histories given to a few of the medical providers a bio something they can to a repetitive trauma but i would say this think why we have a situation here where the mantis way standard has been met so i say yes i would also leave you with this simply because there's a malfunction with a piece of equipment  doesn't mean that we have a compensable accident if we don't really know how that suppose it malfunction impacted the injury or how it would have caused the injury and i go back to their own doctor doctor different based on what he was told he can't say how the description of the accident that he got would be candidly or physically or from a physics perspective as he put it lead to a finding of a that was found on the m r i of november if he can do that i think that's critical in this case because it means i have no one that can do that thank you and feel like i'm comfortable your arguments