directly and easily on direct examination however on cross examination not only did they find he was a basis but he couldn't even remember speaking to dr bernstein he couldn't remember that he had a motor vehicle accident and six and whether or not he treated for back pain in two thousand and eleven so that was one of the things that they based a credibility finding on is that he correctly and easily answered questions and directed all the sudden he may have these memory lapses specific issues in regards of the specific facts of however it was back on drugs examination he was clear that he had prior back problems in the testimony and that he got treatment for them and around the time of the fact i would you explain response like without me dr you did a little bit better in regards to the who he was in his testimony and yes he had a difficult time recalling some certain facts and then in the case well there was him and then also something to know that there was his supervisor in a supervisor even testified that he had an accident actually witness the the doctor yes according to the records there is a consistency there yes and i think but if you take the entire three weeks of treatment it is obvious that from time i objected to the question that it was improper and what did you base your objection what grounds will relevancy foundation and improper wrote her half the most significant argument in her finding was credibility was the two thousand and ten guilty plea of that's where she wrote in the decision terms of the general is the credibility of the witnesses and the way to be given to the testimony and evidence is within the problems of the commission or where it's your honor let me ask you about the medical evidence you clearly have o'leary justifying in your client favor but you also have bernstein on the other side with a contrary opinion so where does that leave you well as far as my book causation i don't know if there was a ruling placed on that it was just my that he said he couldn't remember what he whether he was convicted for a fast i'm reading from the decision right now he couldn't remember a number of things and then she turns around and says and perhaps the most and as to his ability to recall events that presumably have would have significance whether he was convicted pled guilty or whatever that isn't the the not well unless the guy is a serial criminal i don't think the average person would forget whether they pled guilty to a fast well ok i guess when i read the law i don't think that you can ask the question see if they remember if they don't it automatically comes in i think if you're going to impeach somebody on a prior criminal matter i think you have to lay the foundation to do that but you still missing the point we can make a rd try what they're saying is he didn't find that because he was a convicted you know convicted of theft that his credibility was impaired merely by that it was just a final thing in a series of questions when he couldn't remember abby as things he seemed very a base of and that truthful in a candid in his answers that's the problem not that he was convicted of it that he couldn't remember does that make any sense to you now those are are i understand it's ridged in there i'm just arguing that if you're allowed to bring that up with no foundation for not asking a question properly and then they say they questioning and lay the foundation and impeach him with proof that he was but in this particular case sound number and i think what the arbitrator saying is how can you not remember or if you were convicted of that if you of you would have ruled differently in different the issue here is whether or not there is evidence in the record to support the commission's decision and it's our position that there is the commission has a duty to weigh the evidence the problem we have the problem the commission had here as the guy is the petitioner was very lucid when his attorney was asking him questions but when i asked him questions it was a litany of i don't remember i don't recall it's not like that you other problem we have with his evidence is i disagree with mr mr young's assessment the medical records don't support the story that this gentleman told  first off there was the two thousand and six motor vehicle accident that he didn't recall there was an altercation in march of eleven where he injured his back he couldn't test he didn't testify in detail about it he eat the records that were introduced say that he went to a chiropractor but those records were introduced he was treated on two occasions in two thousand and twelve for back problems really it really puts a real spotlight on his credibility he had pricked problems in late march of twenty thousand one hundred and fifty two or three weeks before the alleged accident it which time he was told to be having problems to come back in two or three weeks well two or three weeks is about march th may th when he went in for x rays that would explain why there's no history there specially when  the records indicate the within those x rays that there was no trauma which would also contradict the petitioner's testimony and i i do also disagree i'm not sure how much how much weight mr young's testimony does to corroborate his story is arlo read his testimony and heard him testify it sounds to me like he didn't see anything but he was testifying reported it something to him but then i'm fishing or says he went to the doctor the next day and mr young disputed that and city picked me up at my house and we went to work and then it was then he mr young said that after several days he said he better go get treatment and then when he does go get treated on may th is initial history is i didn't have an accident this happened at home and it's only when it's only when he's told that he has a hernia and needs surgery that the mentor changes his story and says oh i hurt myself at work in this change was so so drastic that even the treating the treaters made comment on it in their records after this initial treatment which was not been commented at all is it in june through july or august the petitioner treated at ajdabiya i r c the petitioner put these records in the treatment there was offer back problems and those records clearly indicate that the back problems are not work related disturbing in dr o'leary's testimony is admission that he never looked at his own at the records from his own on this patient from his own practice so if somebody was treating some he without taking a thorough history without his prior records from this this in his own facility i find i find dr o'leary's testimony to be highly suspect as apparently did the commission d and then it is as has been pointed out when he goes to see my my independent medical examiner dr bernstein again the testimony of dr bernstein is evidence deposition was asked of you in a prior problems and he said no commission had reasonable grounds to find the petitioner lacking in credibility to find dr leary's opinions lacking credibility and therefore there is this decision cannot so all the credibility issues that the d importers arguing had something to do with five or ten year before the access for condition that he had already admitted to so overall i think his credibility should've been credible