against the manifest weight of the evidence leave only one conclusion can be drawn from a reasonable review of the evidence if you believe the petitioner fell all pushing multiple shopping cards the position of crew that she sustained an accident reasonable or fear because when arbitrator cain was hearing the evidence in this case the petitioner was testifying through a bosnian translator in my opinion you can determine if someone's lying in two ways one of the things that they're saying are so farfetched that must be a lie but the second thing it comes from observing body language and listening to what the person saying and listening to the inflection in tone in their voice and i don't know how arbitrator came you as far as i know doesn't speak bosnian could determine based on what the words that this woman was saying and then what the translator was saying if she got to the hospital contrary to what you testified to before you ever trader she was unable to tell anyone what happened to her right she was diagnosed as having undergone a seizure so isn't it would have been medical treatment for seizure condition after the date of accident which there wasn't other then the diagnosis that appeared in the emergency room records when she was unconscious and unresponsive and there's no further mention or diagnosis of a seizure disorder or a fainting problem akron in need of accident the petitioner testified that she didn't have problems with fainting or with seizures before the accident and no evidence was brought forth no medical anyone profit work to show that she did suffer from seizures or fainting issues before the accident well would the claimant be able to relate if she didn't have a seizure and she was pushing multiple shopping cars back and pushing those multiple shopping cart but around it increased risk of accident over the general public that that in my opinion would be had some medical issue while she was pushing the car if she fainted or had a seizure or had some medical issue while she was pushing the car i don't leave that this is the theory that if you haven't any apathic fall in the conditions of your employment increase the risk of an accident or increase the risk of while clearly if your stiff i'm in my office standing there doing nothing and i faint or i have a heart attack and they find me dead in the middle of the office that would not be compensable accident has nothing tying what happened to me to my employment but in this case what if you have a heart attack while you're pushing the carts or heart attack while you're standing there looking at the shelf if you can find if you can prove that the heart attack was in no way if that's correct that is an accident if she had fainted in some way while she was doing that which i don't think you supported my d x and i still believe it's a compensable into the shelving in sustains an injury by the shells i think that yes that would take into and here's the missing link in your analysis really step and give a careful what you seem to be saying nothing to do with the act at work you're saying well she's pushing the parents therefore it doesn't matter whether she was he felt because of other independent medical condition should have been recovers yack speaks for itself is that with the local buy but i think in this case it's totally speculative to say that something else caused all i think the evidence based on her testimony and what she told her in the contradiction is pointed out by the circuit or where she is a fourth time she's asked the same question and at that point she says the question i think was where he threw pushing the carts and she said yes then the this is on cross examination the other attorney asked so you were finished pushing the cards and then he said she her testimony was i was pushing the cart i probably slipped i know because i was pushing the carts i know that when i when it's also asking for some deference as far as not being found a credible witness because she's using a translator again plaintiff cites no cases to support that proposition similarly i believe the line in the was that you know there was not a professional went nuts not entirely sure what that means were in workers compensation competition proceedings titian is not typically rational when this isn't just asked to tell the truth and in this case she had so many different histories of the accident