time which is after around october eighth two thousand and seven she was taken off work by dr khan who she was sent to by the company doctor and that the condition and had been advised to stay off work and that too went to the employer and we also know that the employer did own up to liability for the  second period of temporary total disability from october the babbit two thousand and seven to november twenty eighth of two thousand and seven they did in fact pay t t for that period of time they on and there was no cross examination to that effect nor nor were there any records put into evidence that said his she really was working during this period of time so that's why we didn't pay make these payments there's nothing to them to record whatsoever with regard to why they didn't make any payment for this two week period and i think that's why the commission leaned on that in terms of the penalties as opposed to the reason that arbitrator to put in her decision or  the need for the penalties so i also i think that judgment lynn also made some reference to the fact that she was off work for most of the period post accident and while that may have been true in two thousand and eight she worked like dude up until a period in i believe in august when her her company doctor told her she had to come back at full duty and and so anderson gave her an injection and he noted that she had been off work since over twenty third two thousand and seven so everything that i have been able to see in the record indicates that not only was this lady off work from september twenty fourth two thousand and seven child november twenty eighth of two thousand and seven but say a list this hospital had all those records these were their people these were their representatives who saw her they had these records there's no good anywhere in the record for them not to have paid temporary total disability benefits for that period of time and i think the commission's decision in their regard that that that was not correct should have been paid and it was wrong situations where the employer deliberately delays payment of compensation under the act or when the employer's delay in payment is as a result of bad faith or improper perfects if we can assume that all of the medical treatment that my client received in this particular period of time did not give them any good excuse by way of why billy are they're not being an accident or they're not being cause ation was in two thousand and nine it was for a period of time in march when she's when she had been continuing to see dr scholtz all this period of time even after she had asked him to give her a full due to relief she continued to see him continue to complain of back problems continued to receive treatment but and in fact when she saw him in january he took her off work but she continued to work she continued to work until march of two thousand and nine when found the arbitrator found that that second period of t v should go all the way through to get the fair hearing and in november i believe the based on the manifest weight of the evidence in terms of the period of reason i believe that the past medical as well as the perspective treatment which she testified shadow and appointment coming up the following month that i believe was the only perspective metaphor that once ordered both the arbitrator and by the commission  privilege and those just because of the employer's cost was mean they overthrew their employees medical records they have to give them permission to look at those records or that the employee has come forward with those records to say hey my physician said i cannot work due to th that being said we believe it's possible to mention that first the commission limited the penalties based on the medical evidence that was contained in the record judge and going further reduce those penalties based on the the fact that this case has been deemed to have her her condition though being in november of two thousand and nine to be causally connected to her work injury of august two thousand seven as previously stated in contained in the record miss ross suffered a back injury in two thousand and five she did not fully recovered although she had returned to full duty about a period of two years she had another injury three doctors examined her found that she suffered from the complained of an increase in back pain dr schulze's testimony and his record stated that the idiology of that pain was under it was an increase there is no way that was related to  it's clear from the record four corners of the record which was just consider in deciding whether the previous words were against manifest weight of the evidence they had there is no medical evidence and fact is just the opposite honor i i cannot say with regard to cousin action as i said before this lady went back to work full duty not because she wanted to because a company doctor told her she had to they had to be honored and those restrictions were a twenty pound pushing pulling limit and a ten lb lifting limit and then the company doctor tells her she has to go back to full duty it would it defies logic f my client to decide she wants to go back to to full duty if it weren't for our coercion on the part of st elizabeth's company doctor telling her she had cheap that's why she went back to talk to do the work i would like to reference the court's attention to the volvo case pogo vs industrial commission its two thousand and five case it says the court has recognized repeatedly that when the claim is condition it does work and by a work related accident a subsequent accident that aggravates the condition does not break the cause will change we're looking we have a situation where a lady goes back to light duty and then all do the work which continues in the medical records to show exacerbation of her pain complaints to the extent that she can no longer take it anymore when she called dr shelton march of two thousand and nine we believe it's our contention that cause ation for her condition of being in two plans thousand and nine in august of two thousand and seven yes she had a prior work injury in two thousand and five she had some treatment physical therapy for about three months she went back to work she worked full duty without any restrictions are accommodations  were two thousand and seven that's why they got nicked for ten thousand dollars and you know your honor if we have represented the sport lady back in two thousand and seven after this claim is not in two thousand and eight you know maybe that would have been sent out much major the plain language of the statute says written demand how would we get around it because of some arguable public policy it just says if they made a demand the employer has fourteen days to reply it does that this lady is a coworker and three ah the day it happened the medical records that came and took her off work during that period of time were in their hands at that period of time so they had an obligation they knew