the decisions below based on really the arbitrator's decision that he wasn't credible denied the case binding there was no accident but if one looks at the evidence there's really no connection between this credibility finding which is a little fake anyway and the question of accident even disregarding the testimony of the petitioner reading the medical and the testimony of the three witnesses presented well two of the witnesses presented by the respondent because the third really didn't testify on that issue one can only find that there was an accident there is no way on this record that anyone can find that there was not an accident there is no question that he was at work that day there was no question that he was working with a handheld grinder grinding down concrete walls there was no   he's about nine ninety percent in agreement with the testimony of the petitioner he quibbles on the question of whether there was an accident but it's clear that mr pinball skis definition of accident isn't the same as the commission's definition of  word he seems to think that if it's traumatic that's an accident and if it's repetitive that's not an accident well that doesn't matter to us what matters is what happened there's no question about what happened happened when your recruiter makes it clear t every single significant piece of testimony from the petitioner is supported by all the other evidence the record he went to the doctor the next day did he tell the doctor i fell in the bathtub at home know he told him he got injured at work doing repetitive work as a cement mason that there's there's nothing here that catcher ticks the arbitrator seem to be persuaded by mr lindh led the the surveillance technician i think that that's what he was saying was not credible because  that he saw him carrying groceries and he saw him at a garage sale and all of these things if you look at this testimony there's really nothing that linda had testifies to that has any bearing on the issue of accident so even if you know let's let's take a simple example let's say you know i see a guy slip on a banana peel and it turns out this guy's a big liar he lies all the time doesn't mean he didn't slip on the banana peel all right in this case i'm not agreeing that  y client is not credible i found him to be incredible i found him to be credible but we don't need to address that issue i don't need to persuade you of that for you to find out there was an accident here in fact to my viewing of this record there's no other conclusion one can reach that goes beyond against the manifest weight of the evidence is just against the entire record i want somebody provided you know the causation opinion yes in fact that's the other credible part of this is there's only one causation opinion that's from dr rubenstein and he finds causation there's nothing rebutting that so once we've addressed the issue of accident and get to the issue of causation there's only one conclusion that can be drawn because there's only one doctor with you don't need to do anything with it i guess ultimately it could come up as an issue on t v if you were looking at whether the restrictions that had been given were appropriate whether he was capable of doing more than those restrictions i w testimony doesn't indicate that he was capable of doing more than what he was restricted to but if one were to conclude that then one could look at the issue of whether he was entitle to t t t for certain periods i think he would still find that he is entitle to it because he had restrictions he was complying with those restrictions and no one offered him work with no restrictions certainly the employer could have sent a friend i amy to challenge those restrictions and they neglected to do self having someone follow him around with a camera who can say ok i some left a bag well what's in the bag how heavy is the bag i somewhat the suitcase ok what's in the suitcase it's carpal tunnel the guy's not a paraplegic he can he can lift things he can carry things he might be in pain and all this was consistent with his testimony anyway he said that he did as much as he possibly could to help his family he's at home he said he's injured but he's going to do as much as he possibly can to be a part of that household so there's nothing inconsistent here yeah he was still actively trying to do those things he could do the work is a cement mason no of course not and there's no question that his diagnosis is correct and the surgery that he got was helpful in alleviating those symptoms it's an absolutely pristine case there's nothing about his credibility that has any bearing on any of those issues will respond and offered absolutely no medical evidence is that correct that is correct and all of the medical abuse the titian are offered was all the only dispute is the arbitrator saying i didn't find him credible ok but what happens when they do what happens when the arbitrator doesn't find her ordinarily if it had to do with an issue that was you know let's say he found not credible as to his testimony of how the accident happened i think that would be of interest to us but the fact that he didn't find him credible with regards to something that happened long after the accident doesn't inform us on the issue of accident as to accident there is no dispute no one is disputing the cobol check or he admits he saw him working that day he saw it working every day he let's let's say that he was lying let's say he wasn't in pain he was working all day with the grinder and he really wasn't in pain and he went to the mat and he said matt i'm in a lot of pain i need to see a doctor ok so then what so then he goes to the doctor and gets diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome well how did that happen we all know carpal tunnel syndrome is painful so he had painless carpal tunnel syndrome it doesn't make any sense there's no logical way to reach there's absolutely no evidence of that there's no intervening accident there's nothing else in this case what there is is ten years of working as a cement mason one year working for some player and a week of grinding down concrete walls with this grinding tool that case it's not just that hey she agrees with me so i like that dissent it's the way she goes through the undisputed facts one after another they line up her own dirty work for he worked for them for one year and during that time he was working as a cement mason he testified that although he did other things other than grinding down the walls that all of the work that he did was generally the same exertional level the same difficulty level and he admitted it various times working for them he started to feel pain then there would be a lay off period and the pain would go away and he hoped that that was gone for good then he'd go back and the pain would come back on this particular day it reached such a high level that he couldn't work anymore he had numbers all the way off his arse and he had to point go and tell his employer and that's consistent with the m g results that's consistent with the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome you can't have faith that are no further questions i'll reserve rest my time for and what specific issue it led credibility that there was no accident of the just not credible generals while the arbitrator found in the commission affirms specifically that there was no accident and he found that due to the what kind of job he did what he did every day grinding down the walls they agreed with all that like there was no one with a contradiction to any of the medical records that he did in fact carpal tunnel syndrome and he had bilateral carpal tunnel surgery so any good evidence occur well damn winblad was the investigator testified to a great deal of activity the petitioner was doing outside of his work well and that that might go to how badly he was injured but what does that have to do with whether he was injured at all probably thing is that i mean for example down when platt testified to the fact that on one date it was taking wheels and putting them on his car and using a wrench two to screw in the really reported that an accident happened at work he said he was in pain that he never really reported it he came back the next day and asked to fill out a report to the boss he wouldn't let him fill out an accident report he this due to work and at that point he said no i mean the next day he came in and he asked across the next room part after he had spoken with his doctor and it and at that point mac os he said i'm not not letting you fill to place else till he got well what i'm stating is that the testimony of a downwind leg shows that he was very active outside of work and so it couldn't been eight he could have done something in his spare time maybe he was constantly doing handiwork around the the for example i understand counsel's argument with regard to t t d rather than you know denying the accident but at the same time you know this thing is that she specifically testified to the fact that she could not do anything other than minor sure she could help someone around the house you could sometimes pick up bags but he had to put them down shortly there after he testified he was unable to do things with his hands and shoulders until after his his petition also says that he can't remember whether or not he told him that it was that he had any kind of work related injury or accident which was stuck in the real world for a second you come into the house one night and you have a problem with some part of your body and somebody says well you know  testified that he started working for rush construction in the fall of two thousand and eight and that when he was working for us construction as a concrete finisher that he'd experienced a high degree of pain in his shoulders and his hands and then he testified that during the he didn't go finding out treatment during that period of time he didn't report any kind of accent then indeed he was laid off at the end of the year in two thousand and eight came back to work in the equal of two thousand and nine and he testified that i'll be brief in rebuttal what mr cossey says and what he does are two different things he says that you know there was no accident but then he fills out a form forty five from the worker's compensation commission