it so the commission's decision in this case is against the manifestly of the evidence for several different reasons i'd like to start with accident and we know of the evidence standard this is difficult but what the case law says is that the commission's decision can't be based on speculation and conjecture as you know and when you look at the facts of the case there just simply isn't enough evidence to support what the commission decides in this case so with respect to accident my client to meet after her when she has to go into a dark cold room to get surprised feet that are located in that room in that room which she said was dimly lit and she testified that she slipped on a piece of paper told her ankle and bell injuring the medial side of her right ankle so what the commission indicated in its decision was that they did not find my client testimony that she slipped on a piece of paper in the meat locker and to be credible or persuasive the problem with that is that no one from respondent wal mart ever appeared to contradict what she in terms of the incident report you correctly summarized the incident report your honor but i think what the commission failed to recognize in its decision was that my client testified she didn't complete that form and she even in fact said that she had to correct the supervisor and stop her because she was putting things in there that weren't true and she tech she gave us the name of this person janice and janice was never present at the time of trial to testify so what we have is an incident report that was not completed by my client which i think you can probably all appreciate from the record my client is it is an extremely simple person she works for wal mart in the midst of it that part was assuming that that's absolutely one hundred percent full or in this in this i mean excuse me she did sign it didn't complete it she didn't complete it and she on it perfectly said each time she was asked and the arbitrator even asked her if you read the record what did you slip on i slipped on a piece of paper but here's the problem commission improperly nor the other the other thing with regard to accident and i want to point out to you is that even supposing that my client didn't slip on a piece of paper this case should still have been found compensable by the commission because she testified that this area was formerly l right and the other giving us explanations of why we shouldn't carry the day but it's still a good while the problem is your honor the commission completely ignored that that case and that legal theory they didn't mention it at all and their decision they didn't say that they didn't find that my client or that the the lighting was bad and that didn't constitution as if they basically just ignored it and that was improper for them to do in this case because it's clear from the evidence she well if you look at not only dr kraus it's qualifications but what he actually relied on and his opinions he is an orthopedic specialist so this is something that is more within the realm of the bastille or specialist which doctor free was he's the one who actually did the surgeries on my client dr kraus did not see my client never examined her his testimony suggests that he didn't even have all the medical records at the time that he authored this report her gave it that position in this case and what did he say he said and his opinion is essentially that there must've been something else that happened to my client in the meantime she must have rubbed her ankle on something to cause this all search to develop which became infected which required the amputation the problem with that is that there's no evidence of that there's no evidence of anything else happening to my client other than this injury and then she had is evidence of an injury to her and the medical records while they're not perfect in terms of the the history what they do show you is that my client consistently presented to doctors following this injury for problems that p testimony it's actually page fifteen of his deposition he talks about why he believes this happens he says that he believes that she had a severe sprain that severe sprain may have led to internal bleeding a collection of fluid and then later on became infected so he explained exactly how he believes that it happened and significantly as i mentioned he's the one who saw this lady and ultimately did the surgeries on her won't work of the point mentioned respondent had witnesses they don't they didn't have any witness in the way this is they got the doctor that yes they had it they had an expert but they had to have the medical records are going to teach that they had medical records that were not perfect but supported that my client was injured at work and then developed a problem and that problem continued to get worse over a period of time so i think this case is actually analogous to cicero i cited that in my brief and i think that that stands for the proposition that just because a doctor says that something else could have caused that condition to develop if you have evidence that it did or contributed to it then that's a compensable claim and that's essentially what dr krauss trying to say and why i think the yes but it's i don't think that that opinion is this supported by the evidence and it's not credible based on what dr preved says who's an expert and he's the one who has been treating my client and he says i've read it to you before so i don't want to read it again necessarily but he described how it happened and we don't have anything else that happened to her in the meantime to explain that i i think is also significant because if you look at the m r i it says that she actually had a potential or possible rupture of her achilles tendon and that shows that she had a pretty bad sprain strain and that's what reef says is a severe sprain can lead to this sort of problem and yes she's predisposed to it because she has diabetes but that's exactly what cicero says we can't penalize somebody because they have a preexisting condition we have to take them as we find them and this lady had been working for wal mart had no issues like the wind that ultimately she ended up having all we have this unbroken chain of events from the injury to ultimately what happened to her having to have through so no one's denying that that's a factor here i think if she was a healthy person without diabetes i don't think that probably would have happened to her but under the law that doesn't matter as long as i can show and say that her injury was a factor with respect to the medical records you made a couple of points about the record your honor and what i would point you to is a case i cited in my brief it's the fairest case so that case says that i see my  commission and i'm to start with the accidents issue and i would point out that there are two pieces of added evidence the commission looked to in finding in a misfire to be not credible the first was that associate statement that she had knowledge she signed and as she met there is an acknowledgement when she signed it that the representations are true and correct she had an opportunity to have those things corrected but she signed it and we have to take that as her a true in representation of what occurred on that day the second piece of evidence which i know ms meier did not address in her brief either in the statement of facts or any argument were the records from st elizabeth hospital on june twenty eighth two thousand and eleven and that's the date of the entry and that's the first place she went to treatment and in those records she denies that she found anything or that there was anything on the floor that caused her to fall it's not until dr previous supposed to in two thousand and thirteen and a hypothetical thirteen and if that also becomes her testimony when the case proceeds to trial in two thousand and fifteen so the commission was well within its providence to judge ms virus credibility and to find it lacking when that history is  contradicted by evidence that's creation temporary as to the date of injury i would argue that paris is also not applicable here in fairness the claimant did not say there was never a interviewed by the supervisor that's very similar to what we have here and there was a finding of no accident and the same sets of facts are the president and other three cases cite as for the lighting argument i think the commission views that in the same way and doesn't really find it to be a  medical improvement there is absolutely no mention of the ulceration or cluster on the first heal and the commission finds that significant and they find that significant because august twelfth two thousand and eleven she suddenly has the blister imposed on the under his care in september of two thousand and eleven he had no idea how severe this girl sprint was or what the state of her condition was before that and the commission picked up on that when they found dr krauss more credible than doctor this is a straight  too much stuff all right just briefly with respect to the issue of carve ation one thing that i did not mention to you earlier that i think is significant because i think that the issue of accident i think i i think the commission wrongly decided that issue pretty clearly i think that the poor lighting constituted a hazard even if you don't find that she slipped on a piece of paper so i think that that decision needs to be in my client's favor respect to accidents so with respect to causation once you get over the accident hurdle even if you don't think that the amputation was related to the initial ankle sprain which i obviously think that they have it and so support that but even if you don't what i would point out to you is  kraus agrees not only that she had the ankle sprain that was related to the injury at work but that she also developed the teeth as a result of the ankle sprain he said that that was a factor in the development of that condition so i think that at the very least those two things should be painful and found in my client's favor and i think again the commission ignored evidence their their their opinions and their conclusions in this case are simply not supported by what the evidence has to say so unless you have any questions for me i think i'm not going to thank you very much i think those are both