vision doctor get or the circumstances in this case are in july of two thousand and five the low the petitioner or the employee on was living the latter on to her truck and she twisted her back and had pain she worked the rest of that day which was a half a day and also finished out the week before she sighed any medical treatment she did go to the e r a few days later because she continued points of pain the e references to suggest that those helped her pain there's other references to say that that nothing she gets is dr fletcher in november the end of november and on november twenty ninth so now this is the third visit that she's had with d that it's not a thousand doctors are saying that you know they broke her back and someone else says oh she's completely fine i think in some instances there perhaps could be some medical opinions that are reasonable but in this case the yet that that that fact is completely ignored in the arbitrator's decision which was burned down by the commission she saw her treating family physician on december first two thousand five he releases her to go back to work and he does not put any restrictions on her and then he even in his office notes defers to dr fletcher who has another appointment with her in a couple weeks so insight continues to pay benefits so the employee because they wanted to wait to see what dr fletcher's opinion why since that was already scheduled and clean up the end of that month so i think by the end of the camp in december twenty seventh two thousand and five she meets again with dr fleischer again this is already after her family this issue has returned her to work and has not place any restrictions on her doctor flashing signs that she's neurologically in fact that she providing additional benefits than what they needed to win their own treating physician which should be given deference over and i mean agrees with the i has exaggerated pain behaviors and some of her work hardening program she has one l sign positive while deal with dell signs i'm functional capacity evaluations you have another treating physician dr him he runs who knows that her symptoms are very confusing and she's not responsive to direct questions she seems the face of under all those circumstances it created a legitimate dispute they had a good faith belief  they that petitioner or the employee was no longer were entitled to benefits and they stopped that to allow kind of these to stand requires a complete disregard for her own family physicians opinion that she could go to work with and had not any restrictions on her to say that you rely on doctor fletcher's opinion was unreasonable and it hits you with penalties because of that completely ignores that her treating physician did the same way and under the these circumstances it was reasonable to rely on the family physician and i mean there's also a lot of conflicting medical opinions out there some doctors say she has a messy joint dysfunction another doctor says no that's not are not her problem  so you have all kinds of opinions all over the place and a family physician and i you mean are consistent it's reasonable to rely on that there are reasonable opinions  they you know but there's a long history here you know first that it went to the internship place in july of zero five the arbitration took place in september of two thousand and six on the arbitrations decision i'm a trader's decision we've enter november twentieth of two thousand and six which found which awarding penalties based solely on that it was on reasonable for the employer to rely on dr fletcher's opinion we took that survey commissioned the commission mandated arbitrator then modified the decision to say all reasonable or vexatious and now all the sudden that's created the higher standard and they don't change any of the findings which were written throughout the record and basically the entire decision or the order explains why oh i just mentions that it was unreasonable to rely on doctors lectures that doesn't say anything about being unreasonable to rely on e r doctor were commissioning are statements that she was exaggerating pain that there was a positive well built bill sign that her family physician also had the same opinion as dr fletcher those are completely ignored and if you ignore that and you can't ignore those and have the decision stand this was a legitimate dis dispute merely adding or vexatious to the opinion doesn't create the higher standard which is required in order to have implemented penalties benefits based not only on the treating physicians opinion which happened three weeks earlier than when they stopped benefits and i am me physicians and yet there for that you know there's no further questions you want them to examine you want you sure it's just yours to examine the armands that's what they hired fletcher for and he comes with an opinion these are penalties we're talking about now we're not talking about or released or to work and he did release or return to work and he did not place any restrictions upon her as he had in the past had given some restrictions so without having given insert restrictions implies there are no there were some pain exaggerations there were positive what they all signed there was his own examination and it's not the time when you've got an i me that just comes and spends two seconds with her and says yeah this is not a compensable claim joy even though you know pay anything he met with her over a number of months and had benefits you know insisted on benefits being done so off again if they should be punished and penalize to for holding open benefits longer than they were