purpose of the superintendent's correspondences to ms they had a very was to arrange a meeting for her to come in and discuss what she can and cannot do well types of jagadish would still be able to do within her to refuse to meet with the superintendent basically what the commission is doing is you're warning her family and those at the school district through the superintendent said i'm not going to i'm not going to meet requests to meet with you and i'm not going to meet with you and so mission goes ahead and admit that the petitioner was communicating their work status to the immediate supervisors that was judy allen the powerless the cafeteria supervisor her immediate supervisor who the superintendent acknowledged on cross examination was  opinion is due in part to the response on witnesses on the one hand claiming to have no knowledge of or a lack of knowledge of the petitioners current condition during the period of rehabilitation and on the other hand having the supervisor of the superintendent rendered in this case and it says in a boy who is entitle to receive workers compensation benefits as a result of a work related injury is later terminated for conduct unrelated to the injury the employer's application to pay t v and workers compensation benefits continues until the employee's medical condition is stabilized or she is reach maximum medical treatment which is clearly not the case since particular instance the petitioner in this case this case falls squarely within the parameters of interstates the midst of requesting authorization for medical treatment getting medical care and so forth from acute service was completely denied and i think that the i am commission also cited that in their decision as to their winning the credibility in fact the the arbitrator commission states in their position that they play some suspect in the credibility of the response witnesses by virtue of the fact that the issue of x in this place indicates that the records were dropped on to the district office prior to these letters being written and the superintendent's testimony was in november in fact that percent of her release this had a very two way to work as long as there was no significant lifting involved that was the nov seventh two thousand and six visit their documentation was dropped off at the district and after that documentation was dropped off then the letters from superintendent proof went out because he became aware that she was released today by through the work and he testified that once you received knowledge of that he wanted to meet with air in arrange a light duty of work schedule for her so i think best that's the timeline that supported by or cross examination that she never responded to those letters the media never took place since this is a wholly credibility issue we're not disputing that she provided medical updates to the to the school district what we are seeing here is that once the school district found out that she was released to light duty they want to sit down and talk to her and she refused to come in and and meet with the superintendent despite the fact that the december seventh eleventh said please meet me on december eleventh buried o'clock am and we'll talk about your return to work in your medical status she did not walk now granted out i'll grant that the first letter might be you know confusing and ok already i was already at the district office of legal go so that might be confusing though when she gets a summer seven letter the record based on the record the commission's decision is against and persuaded the evidence council road interstate scaffolding interstates carefully does not do away with the case law that existed previously that