and he did that and dr thomas ruled out that the shoulder was a cause of the neck problems and put him on a five pound weight restriction and then dr perv on said recommended surgery generally speaking the cases usually over you have the i am me section twelve examiner treating doctor in agreement there was a little pause for several weeks as to what was going on and we give opinions to a reasonable degree of medical services whether this guy could work during these intervals what the doctors whose records he's relying on for testimony your honor he didn't even see my client is relying on differ or what is his education arias has evidence or a foundation to make any opinions on whether the guy could work when he never even saw him and he's relying on the records of the doctors that he reviewed that said it was he was unable to go to work it was related to discuss it with dr perper mines and the other issue that the arbitrator raise was he couldn't he was having trouble talking about this neck probably had from an injury when it came out in testimony that he had shingles from it that's was what the problem take issue with the with the commission's finding that there was some inconsistency is an incomplete statements from the claimant about his medical history you disagree with well i don't necessarily disagree with some of the things they guy's treatment from november th injury all the way to the recommend ation of surgery i don't know how dr layman can give his opinions on anything i think you could look at to them our eyes and say they're different  the same are and make some but halas he testify what is the foundational basis or the competency for him to say whether my client worked on a certain day when he didn't even same and the records that he relied on  saying that he remained off work from those injuries if he's relying on the records and there's no independent you know testimony or anything that he had which he didn't he simply relied on the records what is the fact you know what is the basis of his testimony say no further medical requirements not related let's assume you've got some legitimate criticisms of blame and for the moment but i have to ask you a very monday in question who carries the burden in a workers compensation inconsistency in the completeness of what do we do what they have defined do we substitute our judgment the debt of the commission i credibility and weight i don't believe so your honor but what it meant when the test when their testimony is based on such  are their binion's based on just outrageous testimony of a doctor and if you take out dr layman's testimony totally there there there's it would be a hands down for the wris and things that he had to really sit there and think about so i don't think it was fair for him to be labelled not credible and i think arbitrator terrelle agreed with him and i pointed out what the inconsistency is we're in you know in my brief now i briefly laid out there was nothing that was actually germane to causation in escapes and the need for surge the arbitrator was trying to discredit dr per vines the treating doctor and even a doctor backer the respondents own section twelve examiner he could understand that i can understand it either when you have in iraq or not or lehman the case i wanted that reprimand it minute into evidence because it was a prior inconsistent statement in in his deposition with me he was trying to say it was some in one of his staff members all she messed up following template or something which is not what the reprimand says that he signed it's official with the missouri board so he has absolutely no credibility and even your honors without bringing any of that in if you just look at the testimony that he made how could he sit there based on reason to be of medical certainty and say whether or not an individual could work on a day based on looking it to have more eyes that were three and professionalism and from our perspective he has no foundational basis to even make those changes he can't compare m r i i don't have any problem with that but as i stated earlier there's there's two board years old is the way to describe what was in the m r i so i don't know how the arbitrator would take you know this doctor's opinion over the section twelve examiner that the respondent heart has and then the treating doctor credible and they find that the experts foundational opinion the whole foundation of the opinion is based and a flawed presentation based on incomplete inconsistent so reported records by the claim they find well i'm trying to think if everything's ok and it's just a different opinion a fact and a commission will put an opinion i guess the petitioner it's bad luck for me and my my client but in this particular instance where you have such a deviation from the standard procedure of a doctor i mean i just can't fathom him making given notice of pinions based on looking at two am our eyes that are well judge i understand you know the but the manifest weight argument i understand and in a certain circumstance i'm sure i would lose one or some incredible facts being weighed against me i understand doesn't supply us with northeastern reporters in you've throughout your refigure you're citing to unofficial reporters in the future follow the supreme court rule i will definitely do that your honor and i so you're saying i'm didn't know that any of these your honor is suffering in november two thousand and thirteen he completed the application on november th to two thousand and thirteen which was five days after the work  is pretty good didn't really go into too much regret in the medical records but he argues that medical records should be let in for a myriad of reasons however the commission was rat at there was no stipulation that not have the option to use in this case he also attempts to admit a new case as appendix to his brief before this court as well it is against of civil procedure this is an unrelated case where remodeling and other oil involving another lawyer to attempt to have this honorable court in several of his previous inconsistent and improper evidence i want to gang trying to hardly related to the work related contr and as a commission probably found that there is no causation due to the employee's lack of credibility is that they're not airing in denying prospective medical outs the entity be a credit for proper and  the episode and i've cited to that age in my group that's just totally not true dr perper i said in his practice as an practicing neurosurgeon he generally finds out why the clients there what happened and investigates himself from there which was one of the reasons he got the june nd two thousand and fourteen m r i that showed the current are more recent press ology than the older ones that they honour's they run the arbitrator relied on dr layman's opinion that he's based upon a reason agreed a medical certainty that my wasn't off work due to that fall on a six foot man all it was because these are our eyes back and do one thousand and eight and nine it's just a progression which i think is just absurd that that he's got any foundation to do that the arbitrator relying on dr layman's testimony not i'll never see this done in a work comp case went back and took all the t t d that was paid during the time he was off through the hearing just basically took it away and said that's a credit for the employer notwithstanding that their own section twelve i am a doctor packard had mr more off work the treating doctor had mr all more off work no with this particular injury so those things now on these medical records dr lehmann's entire deposition and report was based on the medical records and that he reviewed which we covered in his deposition which are the same records that are in evidence your honour's we the doctor per our doctor layman's reports in evidence and it's got a summary of all the medical for that  hearsay grounds and i understand that during the deposition of dr perper finds if we customarily do down here as a professional we don't try to bog down the opposing lawyer when he's doing his evidence depo with all these foundational requirements at that time cause the records that dr layman use of the same records that i want to put into evidence the same records that i cross examine him on for almost an hour and the same records that he's filed a summary with in his report why i didn't have a certification page on the front of those records i don't know what i even i guess i didn't do it clear enough because the commission ruled against me that i stipulated to the admission of any records they want to use dr layman's deposition and i cross examined for over an hour on those records i apparently mistakenly believed those records would have to be an evidence for dr lehmann's deposition not to be hearsay because if the if the records are not admitted because there hearsay any testimony based on those records would be double hearsay and not admissible so in that regard i argued to the arbitrator we should strive dr lehmann's and tardive position if the records aren't coming in arm the basis of us whole opinion in this case that that being said i've simply asked the court to look at the testimony of dr layman s compared to dr pervert mines and their own section twelve i am me and find that my