but that he has full benefit of your red briefs and he will have full benefit of both the audio and likely as well now the video and he's a fully participating presented to and raise two issues on appeal the st issue is whether petitioners condition of being bad was its condition due as right knee was caused lee related to the accidents were not compensable is against the manifest made of the have it and i will like to take most of my time majority of the time in arguing the st issue as that is a main issue that has been raised brief and i would like to raise today if time permits and i will proceed forward but the nd issue here are the facts but dish never at the time of the accident was employed at a fitness club working there he knew would be a supervisor their supervisor was a friend to him his name was brian kelly he started working there sometime in july of two thousand and i was working as a sales consultant and he was in charge of selling memberships at the time of the trial petitioner testified that he was involved in is specific accident on august th of two thousand and nine and the accident happened while he was they were doing some renovations and while he was moving it treadmill read the help of his supervisor bryan kelly there was a some member had a plastic water bottle that he went into a deep squatting position and as a result of ended up twisting his right knee now this incident that i just described to you was witnessed by petitioners immediate supervisor who did not testify at the time of the trial after that patient justified the ad the next day the supervisor took him to physician immediate care now kind of a place that an employee goes to if instructed by the employer as a result off a work related accident if you look at the medical records of physician immediate care but you will know  handwritten notes do indicate that the responsible party for paying this was that is the employer which was five star fitness they do know that he was employed at the time of the accident and at five star fitness they noted a consistent history of accident and same manner that petitioner testify to was noted in the medical records they performed a physical examination the physical examination ambulating not only did they do all of then they wanted him to come back and schedule an appointment for september st of two thousand and nine but doesn't justify that after this whole older ordeal happen you talk to bryan kelly and brian kelly indicated to him that he has discussed the matter of the three owners and they are not going to accept this case as a workers compensation case he wasn't provided with a reason as to why they're not going to accept this case of the workers compensation case but that they were not going to accept that he doesn't buy that that time he had no idea what his workers compensation rights were  did not have any way to pay for the doctor's appointments so what he ended up doing was he had not keeping his the appointment that was previously scheduled by the physician and he just care he does just supervisor continued to accommodate his sanitary duty restrictions on his own after a while and approximately six months later and every of two thousand and nineteen he left working for the  more of a supervisory safety regulation kind of role he testified than once he had that job and as in his job capacity he was dealing with people who had other work related injuries he learned about his ride he learned about his worker's compensation right he learned about workers compensation statute of limitation but essentially says that an employee is freed of file it cause of action against the employer within three years of the accident now you learn as employee his rights very close to the expiration of the statute of limitation because they are not disputing when he learned his rights he hired an attorney doctor rody and waiting for authorization for the surgical intervention he was involved in for subsequent accidents while he found a job at the clubs at river city now there is no testimony or parties presented testimony off three different doctors and those doctors touched upon the main issue which is the causation issue in this case the testimony was presented from it was presented from dr lieber who was an independent medical expert hired by five star fitness there was also testimony from dr worm off who was a doctor hired by the subsequent employer for the related to the initial accident now dr lieber in his deposition and dead at met that bucket handle tears could be quranic in nature but he did agree that is a maneuver that would be competent off causing a back bucket handle here now there is no doubt there is been no evidence that was presented no evidence presented at it that there was an intervening accident and or a subsequent accident that took place from august th two thousand and nine the st accident question to the nd accident off the timer thirteen and thirty in a different employer that is and questions are there is nothing no evidence presented to show something happened between dr werman the other independent medical examiner he looked at the doctor strike that he indicated that the bucket handle tear the petitioner has based on the findings of the m r i was a bucket handle tear that was traumatically cost now he couldn't really provided was he indicated look the medical records support this particular individual has a traumatic event and it is the kind of traumatic event that would be co accident and there is nothing in between that happen till he started receiving treatment but here is the treatment it came very apparent the doctor wrote is deposition and his opinion that look what happened here was he had a traumatic accident however his knee uncreated for so long that the bucket handle t r the traumatic market will tear that he sustain displaced because it is now in their native possession so i think the commission largely ignored testimony of dr robi who indicated and explain why dr lieber as to why this patient was able to goal to your air two years and eleven months without seeking treatment or without you know receiving any active treatment still being able to carry on with his regular life duties i think all commission focus on two years eleven months that's counsel was talking about in august two thousand and nine accidents addressing the justices question noteworthy is that in its  's brief there was really no mention of the facts relied on by the commission to reach their decision and it's a tough standard for the for the and in this particular case it's a hurdle that the appellant has not been able to overcome and what the appellant's argument in both their brief and today is  argument that would be made at the commission here are the facts i view the facts this way you should rule in my favor well the biggest oil ballad to just the difference of opinion between rody and wilbur that is what the commission's dated and that is my belief and that is how they came to their opinion it's a medical dispute it's a factual determination explanation is sufficient evidence in the record support dr leader's findings yes there are secure are going to us well and in this case the commission stated in their decision supported by the records he was able to return in a few weeks to due to his work he was doing strenuous what they described as and this is supported in the record strenuous workouts with the knee with it with is entire physical regimen he was essentially able to function in a manner that was supported by the records inconsistent with the tear that dr rody is relying on to argue that it's all related to the accident almost three years earlier and it should be pointed out and i did in my brief that there's this notion and counsel brought up there's a reduced error or if a tear is reduced then you can function if the pair is displaced well then you can't function and i think the tear was reduced of fourteen that would be the time ok yeah i see the tear he says it's a complex tear and if you look at the upper torso it's a complex tear he doesn't say whether it was reduced in this case however at this point in time you've got a unanimous commission decision that's the employer employee and neutral all saying no we view this two year old levon month under the circumstances of this case as troublesome and as and not and the reason or one of the reasons for why they found against the petitioner so i think the court's hands are tied in this furious i think that there's sufficient evidence to support the commission's decision the injury correct dr rody states in his testimony that if the tear was reduced then he may be able to function without so he gave an he said what he said what he testified to is my interpretation of it was that if the claimant hits the same type of care that was found in the m r i he would not have been able to function to the degree he function testimony one story short i think there's more than sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that there was no accident or accidents plural excuse me while mr bell felt work for my client closer  clarified or discussed any difference between reduced words says a displaced here but just one of the main arguments we are making because it does rebut his testimony that b sure i think if you look at the evidence in its totality you will see that there is well st of all petitioner by the way which as arbitrator pointed out the only person who heard the petitioner testify that he presented credible testimony he testified to a specific incident there are some serious finding noted in the initial in our and there is nothing in between no other intervening accident that he was involved in i think