of the point of some point they are a traitor made a decision on their case finding that there had been no such accident he did so on three bases the first was that he edition or to follow the respondents reporting procedures with respect to reporting workplace injury the second basis was that the petitioner had not spoken of a work accident when he first met with the company nurse sometime later and the third reason was not to question or had not made mention to his treating physicians in the immediate aftermath of his injury and it arisen from activity of work each of these points is flawed and in fact speaks to a different issue altogether the first where the arbitrator notes that the petitioner fail to follow proper reporting procedure is a question of notice it's not a question of accident the response during its witness testimony clearly laid out that it was the responsibility of the supervisor to fill out accident or trauma to the physicians that he saw in the wake of the injury and well there at least partially correct the titian or did not specifically make notice of this to he describes that he's recovering from a strain it happened again several days ago and in each in each instance has to have the timeline doesn't change the petitioner did not it is unclear whether not so it's unclear whether there was an error made in the medical records that petitioner testified that there was that he told these doctors that he had had a lifting incident at work where he felt that it was a muscle pull or something like that and start treatment immediately the records did not go to the respondent but the respondent i would argue again it speaks to note is not an accident and the bulk of the evidence other than that indicates that there's no one is consistent when he he had a lifting incident at work on december ninth and such treatment or after based on the seconds injury took place on martin august third two thousand and three and i say approximately only because there are some indications in the record that the petitioner certainly did not seek treatment for a number of time figuring that it was not at the time serious injury the arbitrator on the second injury  no no mention of the credibility of the petitioner surely if he found the petitioner incredible he would have stated so on the record rather than giving roundabout references to the reporting process which again not correct to be contemporaneous medical notes are all clear that the perhaps mostly in retrospect did not immediately report the work injury at the time but he did attempt to continue working and hoping that the pain of the symptoms would fade over time sometimes they do certainly you can have a day at work where you  being the petitioner in this case you know he he was trying to work through it for a couple months and it didn't succeed he went to treatment and traded for several months and then eventually did make a report this this  august now there's a notice requirement that he responds once they are aware of the facts has received notice there are indications in the record in the dissent by commissioner mason makes no to those indications that  was against the manifest weight of the evidence would submit that it's a difficult burden and then the matters both accidents here and that there is ample evidence in the record to support the decisions of the arbitrator and the subsequent approval by the arbitrator's decision in that it failed that the petitioner failed to report the accident even though i knew how to do so and he denied that he suffered a work injury when reporting to the nurse for the purpose of obtaining short term disability and desertions with respect to the notice and failure to report the accident i believe the question i was pointed out that that doesn't that go to the credibility and i turn to the issue of whether an accident even occurred if you didn't report something then it could be a reasonable inference that the failure to report means that nothing occurred in that there may be some recent abuse history here even if you it would three separate occasions following the accident and it's true that he did present the doctor a couple of days afterwards a matter near the time of the accident but the first time he went he didn't recall anything unusual no mention of a work related action and the second time that he went about ten or twelve days later on there was a history that he was reaching for the alarm clock the night before and suffered some pain in his neck and shoulder again emergency room note and there was no history of trauma it seems that the petitioner would have us believe that he told everybody in the world about this accident coworkers supervisors whoever that they'll to tell his treating physicians  shouldn't be penalized for that either if there's no history of an accident here also with the denial of the accident trauma of short term disability plan that is also important petition points out in the brief that that's taken advantage of that remedy isn't relevant to the works workers compensation climb we would submit that it is because it is yet another opportunity for the petitioner to tell someone what happened and that it was a work related accident and specifically said nope it's not work related united's and so the first time we get a version of events really that there was some type of work related action it came from testimony and to get at the to report the accident to that was one of the bases in the report to the nurse was contradicted i think that the questions to counsel during his argument it right to the point here he knew out to fill out an accident or there was a delay in treatment of three months while that in itself doesn't mean that a work related accident doesn't occur granted it is one factor to say that coupled with the fact that he didn't tell anybody and nurse until january some months later after the alleged action it is a factor to say that this didn't occur so in short in either accident there is ample evidence in the record to support the arbitrator the problem with that is that if if we're to believe that the petitioner was in essence making up that injury and didn't go for several months to seek treatment for it it's an oddly specific injury to make up this is a man who started experiencing pain following something at work and thought it would go away nothing more it doesn't indicate that he was being put into or deceptive anyway the the other thing that i would like to he went to his treatment initially after the first injury when he noted that he didn't recall anything unusual according to the doctor it's because nothing out of the ordinary and work happened he was doing his normal job his normal duties petitioner went to the doctor and no it's only that he was doing everything he normally did and started having this pain it wasn't till later that it was connected in his mind to this injury so this this idea that the