why i will spend most of my time with that decision because i believe that that decision was in fact correct the circumstances surrounding disclaimer or will brief then and there in the record but basically it  close to the edge and stepped off into the flower beds or what caused her fall subsequent to the bed initial report and at trial she testified that she has had time to reflect on what happened and she believes she might have stepped on a rock which i wasn't falling and tried to assist her she testified that after machinery her after ms everson fell she went to pick up her shoe and helped her up and at that time she noticed some rocks on the sidewalk close to her shoes were to have ended up landing  review there would have to be no facts in dispute only whatever inferences were drawn from the facts in this case clearly there's there is no dispute on what caused all therefore the standard to review calls automatic liability and i have been doing com for fifteen years and i wouldn't a statutory requirement i don't know what automatic liability would be clearly judge carol and i would not put words in and they deemed that bet or sion of her wrist injury was not work related however the commission then went on to award all of the medical benefits for all of the medical bills that were entered into evidence if the original trial  everson our position is that if in the event that you do find that the original decision should not be reinstated our position is that there's no way there's no way with the way the bills or differentiated in the record to determine what the costs associated with her treatment surgery were related to the parliament lou terror and what her for related strictly to the to the fractured wrist so at the very least we would ask better that particular issue be removed we should to make a determination on the proper amount of medical billing today and those issues are whether or not the injuries sustained by you've ever seen a rose out of home point men and second issue with the issue of the medical bills and whether they are properly paid however i'd like to jump directly into a very important issue which i think is directly on point and necessary for the court to try to understand in order to make a determination as to their rights that issue and that's the adverse inference we heard testimony or excuse me not testimony or heard statements from opposing counsel regarding statements made during arbitration what's important here is that howard sutton the human resources manager whom even a person reported for her fall two went out to the scene of the accident ten minutes after that accident occurred and she took photographs of the sea depicted at that time were those the photographs if they submitted at arbitration no they were not they submitted out the pictures that were taken over a month later by an insurance adjuster when asked why they did not submit the photographs taken ten minutes later after the accident the only reason that was provided was that they weren't date and time stamp well everyone knows  i understand that i still ask this court to consider the fact that the adverse inference was failed to be drawn even if even if even a person did not argue with appy actual time of hearing i think it's still the duty of the a well i think that the issue was absolutely addressed at the hearing whenever it was brought up that that evidence was solely in the possession of power seitan the employer that information was never provided or those pictures were never provided that was the testimony that was presented and the only reason that was given was that it wasn't a timestamp i think if we look at the tivo case it sets out some very specific standards in which an adverse in france should be into the adversity ok without getting into the adversary by reading it i think that the evidence presented at trial absolutely supports the position that there were rocks present on the sidewalk and it wasn't back the rocks that she tripped on that caused her injury when she way yet that that was a very common occurrence the second thing that she said and she consistently stated throughout this that she said as i turned i felt something that felt like a rock i submit to the score that she had looked down and seen that give those answers right and she gave open honest answers that she was not exactly sure what she stepped on but it felt like a rock that has been consistent throughout and i think that's what's key here is that she felt like she was a rock she would never step down if she had seen it and if she that i've cited to my brief first and foremost to equal discount versus the industrial commission case it's a supreme court case from ninety eight that's was a case where in the climate was on a work break and he was playing frisbee in a parking lot nothing in that case shows here and that case the employee was taking a break on a roof the roof gave way he fell down well here again it's very similar to that recent case and that we had a rock the evidence the testimony presented at trial support that there were rocks on the support that trial was that the employer was aware that they were used to walk inside of the building the employer then says you cannot walk inside the building thereby implicitly allowing them to walk outside she testified as did miss henry her are i'm still are you one other issue that we have before the court is the issue of medical bills mr sweeney a present from mr schroeder has argued that the medical bills that were submitted should not have been paid i think that it's important for us to know that he has in fact waived his argument on that because he failed to object to it actuarial he objected only on the basis of liability no objection as to hearsay and that is all contained very specifically within the r employment and awarded all of the medical records which she failed to object to then that would have been exactly the award that she had on remand and no time to hear in fact to any of those records or as necessary treatment her being outside of that which treated the acute comes from right it is a five point zero one i believe was the whole purpose behind the only pattern instructions at least to my understanding and i don't do civil or criminal law but my understanding is those instructions are designed to form a prior fact in the current state of the law i've never seen nor do i know of any provision in the statute that calls for i p o s to be used in worker's compensation case obviously t and the witness mr sutton when i put him on you brought the photographs with him but i had asked for i wasn't even aware of the other photographs and they just came up in in discussion a trial but nonetheless staff list that they arbitrators not consider the absence of these photos in other words is there something in the arbitrator's decision that to the effect of i have an understanding that these photos were refuse to draw an adverse inference and yes if that's what needs to happen then it's incumbent on the claimant to ask whatever questions or make whatever offers of proof at trial not in her  with regard to the records we have checked into all of the medical records and all of the medical bills as far as i hear same objection my recollection is and i could be wrong but my recollection is those records that were entered in at trial were certified so they would have come in anyway o an objection so at the time the allegation on the part of the petitioner was that her entire wrist problem the surgery the medical that was associated with