what the the report has indicated it aggravated that and that's your primary care doctor providing that medical test was really country medical oh no not what dr mcgrady she went saw and dr mcbirnie didn't recommend any there should still be payment for medical bills for doctor dr pardo injections that they had that were ultimately recommended by dr pepper and who agreed to be appropriate five d is there there's ample testimony in her report and in her deposition the treatment she provided was reasonably related to alleviate her carriage of her condition of ill being and this was two days after the actual i would second submit to you that that wasn't taken into account and that is an error and it is against a man that's where the evidence that for sure a first appointment with your own primary care doctor after a fall and treatment was given by dr part of what amounts that's important in this case because dr pardo in her report and in her testimony in metz that the pain that they originally recognized as hip pain was actually back so she was treating for a period of time with dr pardo before she got referred to dr after because there was a and a proper analysis as to whether this where this pain is coming so no that way you can throw in the conditions might be ok i don't disagree it came but what i would say it's different is she did not just testify to that fact if you review the arbitration transcript for arbitrating t v she indicated that she had received treatment to a blow until they realized that it was a back issue and not a hip issue and at that point in time dr pardo refer the petitioner to dr hafner so that was i believe in april of two thousand and three to be as blunt as possible and my position to the members of this court is even with regard to even if you accept that principle is true that the testimony is just regarded in its entirety if you look at the testimony of dr par understand if there are there isn't any evidence of her receiving care and treatment post accident from a primary care physician there's ample evidence that there is evidence that she went to the doctor on monday which is the first week after the accident after receiving a murder emergency medical treatment for mouth that the commission did not even award that amount in medical expense and in my mind that the commission looked at that and disregarded the opinion of dr park and under the direct you directly respond to your question had a commission set forth why dr part of care and treatment and her opinions be discounted for particular reason i can better like a better provides you with an answer but in light of the fact that they really were not addressed my position is that they weren't given appropriate weight credibility and they should be under the facts of the circumstances because she is a primary care tree decision to you saying that nobody testif her to doctor part no no and dr beg testified to afterwards that the care and treatment that initially was provided to her in the form of pain injections was appropriate he was critical of him for the care and treatment that she received the doctor part of the down the list but no one has said that for powering up the primary care physician two days after the accident for a very serious