to the medical providers he treated with at the accident he consistently said i slipped and fell now if if you are required to say i slipped and fell on water in order to seek treatment from a medical provider that that that's an reasonable he didn't say my lady gave out he said i slipped and fell and i think to that extent when you combine that with the fact that we've got an area of the respondents plan look if in fact you could establish the worker was there on the occasion of the claims that's the robot as well and your honor this was that the respondents prince stay are quite familiar with the fact that this is the locker room area this is arbitrator and the commission then to affirm the arbitrator signing that the fact that my client temporarily lost conscience kasha conscience ness necessarily implies that he wouldn't remember that he had water on his hand after the accident i mean that's right speculation there's no medical opinion to that effect that that because you may have struck your head you're not going to remember anything that happened afterwards  yes exactly and my client testified that when after he had laid there for a few minutes and just was in the attempting to stand back up on the on the stairs he placed his hand on the on the riser of of the stairs and he felt that it was wet that was his testimony at trial that that to substantiate the fact that there was water on the stairs that and mike my client's testimony that it was well known that this area of the plant candy generally speaking answering that direct question yes you're right fact i think you need to look at all of the entrances that be commission made with regard to my client's credibility and find out whether they were reasonable or not what happens when the well not only the fact that well let's let's directly look at what other evidence there was available about the water of the sears we had two witnesses who were who were whose names were put on the accident report that my client filled out the very day he had the accident this is a large corporation us steel they've been are in business for years and years and years they have the benefit of having this accident report from day one with two witnesses listed on there and i don't you don't you think that it's reasonable to assume that that the response of someone in their risk assessment have to in to now to look back and say yeah should've said something about there was water on the steps when i went to to the doctor and i should have put there was water on steps when i felt that my accident report he said that well versed you woke up from ok just because he felt the water he knew immediately the water was connected to this fault and he never told anybody well your honor i think what he said was after he woke up after after it was time to get up he placed his hand down he knew there's stairs generally speaking at quitting time after after the ice or showering there's there's likelihood that there's going to be water water on the stairs but he didn't think too much about it because he was holding on to to the stairway i mean he understood that that there was water here but two to place on him a burden that unless you say there's water on the sets you are going to recover this i'm this claim is a burden on a layman that i don't think the court i think that you know our leverage for all i think that testimony was also misconstrued by the by the commission your honor he was particularly questioned i underwent examination about treatment with a dr charles king  chiropractor and he said that that treatment was mainly for his back and be on the arbitrator of the commission turned that into a situation where he was he was  he ever had any problem with his left hip prior to this accident and that couldn't be further from the truth he testified that in two thousand and one hits suffered a fall and fell onto his left hip in the records to cho the accident report that he filled out he said that at at the at this time that he was already on restrictions because he was having a problem with this left it so so i think that that inference that was drawn by the commission was was were medical records should just be treated and if your honor i'm i'm i'm quoting back to the testimony about dr king that had to do with his treatment back in march of two thousand and eight where he had had he had suffered a fall on his leg he may have been mistaken about in two thousand and six whether it was the right approach the left hip that he was having problems with but if you look at it if you look at the records from dr john sheridan an orthopedic surgeon who evaluated him in two thousand and six you'll see that he was being looked at for for off arthritis in both of his hips at that point and in fact dr sharon found that the left hip may have been worse than the right but he did in fact have arthritis in both hips now accident report that he was getting he was getting there was his number was a little before the repeal that yes it two thousand and six but in terms of what he was being treated for that the physical therapy that he memory doesn't seem to be there with regard to to the water he testified that that there were two gentlemen standing over him when he regained consciousness they said you need to sit there for a few minutes he did when he put his hand down at present in the accident or word of slip doesn't necessarily mean slipped on water i'm not certain how we are somehow put on notice that we should have investigated that it's the first time we heard it what if you would've said of arbitration and said i slipped on a bolt or i slipped on a piece of plastic there's no possible way for us to know exactly what it was it's unrebutted by testimony by responding because we had no idea until the day we sat possibly right and possibly did i have no evidence of a record that noted that there was the there was not two witnesses certainly could have aided in that either by testimony and you know the two witnesses were there i don't recall the actual record saying that two witnesses identified water on the stairs there were two gentlemen standing over him is he now we don't know whether they were facing the other way we don't know if they heard this gentleman fall and turned around the action report doesn't say these gentleman did in fact hear physical therapy and massage therapy not only on his back but his left hip two weeks before this incident occurred he didn't see the doctor shirton inquiring about resurfacing of his left hip in two thousand six he didn't deny it but he said was i'm certain that it was my right i'm certain was my right well maybe dr sharon's records are wrong but we all know the left it was worse than the right to have those that was no or just a moment ago he has some first aid immediately following the accident and then his medical treatment is released to the left hip really sort of falls off the arthritic conditions or skin wax and wane come and go the other sagat problem before he fel he likely fell on his hip it used at some point in the medical really for almost a year into any significant complaint saying my left hip it's my packets my aches and pains in  reasonable inference that water was the cause of all there was with regard to the national law where the men take showers at quitting time and the time  that the man take showers work and it's well known there at that particular time of day that there could be water on the steps because that with regard to the two witnesses that the act tells claimants that they must file a notice i think they must give notice of him of an injury within forty five days after an accident my client gave that notice that day and the reason that you're supposed to give that notice within that timely forty five days is so that the employer  investigate and i would ask you to ask yourselves is it reasonable that if these two witnesses were there at the time of the accident that the respondents people didn't talk to them and  if those two people had something to say about the fact that there was nothing wrong with those steps there are if there was some way into to defeat last bill before a worker's compensation claim from my client that they wouldn't call those two folks to testify in this commission were reasonable in this case based on this evidence and the fact that these these witnesses were not caught by the responding with regard to connection my client did treat after the accident in fact  surgery including here he had resurfacing type surgery but he he told reported to dr branson that point in time that this man wasn't ready for surgery at that  that portion of his opinion it's simply not supported by it's after the accident he continued to have problems in fact he testified that walking became more and more difficult for him his symptoms did progress granted dr lux testified that arthritis and wax and wane he got a little bit of help if you look at the the physical therapy discharge summary they said he really he he only got minimal