insurmountable but as judge slandered said in his memorandum this opinion which i thought was very eloquent he said the court is constrained by a standard of review that is heavily fraught with dea steps leading up to the house of her home health care patient at the time of the injury ms hacker a registered nurse was carrying her nurse's bag which contained a laptop computer and nursing supplies she continued to work hoping that she only had a minor injury but after ten days the pain was still there so she went to be part of the accident treated at carl foundation's health care facility provided  fourth she tripped on a pipe that patients home every medical record every accident report every evaluation report from that point forward ten days following the accident if you're not here right all  yes and it's possible that you can stumble your toe if that and you can have a full yes i believe stumbles and more appropriate word but the activity consistent with the medical records that medical records during because hackers testimony her history is fake and that's understood there it starts testimony is very clear very detail ms hacker if she's under oath and constrained with the truth and she if she doesn't really know how she stumble exactly you know whether that's the truth and she has to go with that whether it's vague and not not the greatest had she had she been able to take more liberties with the truth she probably could have came up with a better story but she was generated by other home health care nurses after the accident had been reported investigated and by no change so i believe that shows that this was simply one word yes i see my time is just about up i would  appreciative to the red light the ok i i appreciate the questions and i was hoping for four for those it is a tough standard and i do understand that but in this case i think it is important is all about injuries at obviously and my experience has been that the arbitrators to resolve conflicts in testimony by focusing on the medical records i believe that's how they maintain this because medical records are so important in this case they didn't see a seems to be either dismissed ignored or given very short shrift ten trial arbitration hearing sometimes for what i consider an outline just busy document hearings forms an outline for the arbitrators to then refer to the medical records in this case the testimony very clear on one side very i'm not sure i can remember on the other was was it the records were not referencing that that to me is a very big ikoro in the beginning of june or end of may and he was on restrictions where it would be allowed to do that for five to six weeks so he shot certain of these but yes to the question that you're with your commentary i wasn't that she knew  she couldn't possibly see in your honor that's one of the irreconcilable differences that is in this case i don't know how to explain that i don't know if there's a way to explain that perhaps she saw a press that stuck out the side of the dock i don't know if that were the accident where the petitioner does not reference his wife and her story as to how she tripped and fell stumble changed and the most important piece of evidence for us is the fact that on the date of the accident she was filling out that look at the the the demeanor and the reason this of their testimony in regards to the evidence that was in front of them in light of all that we would ask and in light of the standard of view which is one of i can only speculate well there was speculation that ok ok i mean if these computer their computer record is a is why it's generated by that laptop computer they're sitting there doing taking taking blood pressure taking assessments idles up putting those into the computer there is a point in that that in that i first says either discussion with with the patient there is very limited  years later saying hey this did happen so yeah that bat sets the stage for a lot of speculation when that question the issue of is somebody going to believe me that i actually stumbled or not was wasn't race until the very end understood that's part of the inherent risk of of of arbitration hearings and so that's about that at least and you know provides some spec basis for speculation  fourth and july tenth and that was never mentioned superimposed that that fact with the fact that mishap or could not have known that there was a pipe in these co