of twenty two thousand and twenty two dollars and eight cents medical expenses from a medical provider advanced physicians was incorrect because i want to throw you a curve at the outset here but it would appear to support the arbitrator's decision for an employee in a worker's compensation case they have the responsibility to prove every element of their claim in this case at dispute were certain medical bills from advance physicians now section eight of the worker's compensation act states that an employer is liable to an employee for those necessary medical surgical hospital services but it's limited to what's reasonably required to relieve the effects of the accidental injury i take this to mean that the employer in this case had the burden of proving by the hundreds of the evidence that the bills from advance physicians were reasonably required to relieve the effects of the accidental injury however in this case simply fail to submit first of all medical records to support all of the dates of services for the for the best physicians bill to well there is no authority to indicate that they did that they have to present medical records to support all the corresponding medical bills the employee would have to provide something else such as testimony of a doctor a deposition their own testimony regarding the reasonableness and assess city of the services the point in this case submitted the bill they had a one page discharge summary which just stated that the employee attended seventy six visits with this provider and then finally the employee testified at trial that yes i want to this provider but they did not go through the dates of services so the only thing you notice that the employee submitted was that they went directly to whether services were provided at this provider on these days was just a bill is a fourteen page bill and none of the evidence went directly to whether the care that was provided at advanced physicians was necessary or reasonable  you know as i mentioned the bill supported dates of service so it could be used as evidence to show that yes there was treatment at this provider on these dates but there is no corresponding medical records to determine do these doesn't go to the actual treatment that was provided with this provider the employees alleging that they underwent various treatments chiropractic immortalities physical therapy that type of thing and there are no records there that the treatment helped was brief testimony by the employee when we need to consider other sources of evidence we have to look at the employee's own treating doctor referred him to an orthopedic anderson who found him in february of two thousand and six to have reached maximum medical improvement and in need of no further care proximately one month later in march the employee went to see a  all this services so we're looking at two or certified orthopedic surgeons opinion that know for the care is needed versus the employee's testimony that i had this treatment and help me  later on after the services ended it advance physicians dr mather was deposed and at the time he was asked would these services these types of services that were provided with those have been reasonable the employee went on his own to or that may have been the case it was only after the employee returned to work in city that he couldn't work but then he went back to advance physicians for some further care he went bad words you went for the first time wrong what's wrong with it is that this all occurred after the employee had been released and declared in need of no further treatment by the by the respondents examined by the respon examining physician and before that by an orthopedic surgeon that was that the employee was referred to by their own treating physician so both sides referred employee to doctors that found the she points to dr mather who is the i mean position to his opinion that all of the medical care up to this point was reasonable and necessary that's the only piece of evidence that she cites in her decision about the reasonableness of necessity however she misquotes dr mather she misreads his report as being in march two thousand and seven which would have meant that all a care up to that point would have been reasonable up there was more than adequate evidence in the record for the commission to make its decision to shift exhibit seven thirty three pages of reports test results and notes from advanced the bill itself eleven pages is incredibly detailed with procedure codes and descriptions of all treatment without these we have the testimony of the petitioner and we have the testimony of the hired examiner who had the benefit of reviewing the copious records from advanced i made a tactical decision not to put those records in at trial and the reason i did that was frankly i thought they w the commission and ate the schedule that they apply in these cases and that was what the arbitrator did in this case that's why it was reduced by fifty percent i don't think there's any question that the original bill was unreasonable but i think that with the application of the fee schedule on the commission has come up with a number that is fair and reasonable for you group has really become foundation for reasonable  heard from experts on both sides and they decided what is fair or reasonable i'm included in that argument you know it would be the fact that there were not medical bills submitted or medical records and that in the corresponding to those bills in our brief immediately following the trial of the proposed decision to the arbitrator this issue was raised and it has continued to be raised up to this point you know my point talked about the evidence that was submitted that when directly to these supporting these bills but there was nothing that he could say that stated that these were reasonable and necessary sure there were certain records from advanced physicians that wanted to have it inside the states are thirty three pages the really dates of service the thirty three pages that were submitted go to fourteen dates of service now the employee has the burden of proving every element of their claim the reasonableness a necessity of these medical services by submitting  could go towards that but the claim is not a medical professional they do not know what what is reasonable what is necessary as far as services that are provided so there is no there's no medical expert evidence stating that these services that were provided made the employee feel better there's just a layman's testimony that at a certain point he felt better well b exactly in that the employee did not testify as to what occurred on the states of services there is no evidence from the employee submitted at trial that one two were these modalities provided on the states  for all eighty dates there's just corresponding records for fourteen different dates at that time but there's just speculation that i mean it's reasonable to use to see a bill for any dates of service and think of course eighty days of service were provided but to consider this case that issue was the