and i think it's a pretty important factor in this case especially when out of those seven doctors none of which they choose him and i on that day two of those are the respondents on doctors so i'm on the eight five thirteen day you'll treating with gateway occupational health her employer the respondent in this case is gateway hospital they are quite literally a parent company and so a company underneath but so in my opinion the petitioner is treating with the respondent so she's treating with the respondent ideally accusation help on aug fifth twenty thirteen on that day she is undergoing active medical treatment and on that day the doctor recommends pain do actually i would disagree because we have the commission well i think commissions said that she was not credible but i think that's weak when i think that credibility argument in this case is somewhat of a manufactured argument it's more of a medical argument and if you look at the the doctor bernardi said that she had a preexisting condition as well and that dr bernard even admitted that the credibility question wasn't really built a credibility question he admitted in his deposition that she didn't actually have low back pain part of this accident which is you that there's that that note says that in no prior says the exact same thing they're they're kind of carbon copies of sickness so essentially what we have is is the respondent themselves disagreeing with their own opinions and advocating they don't even agree with i'm you'll note in the record the respondent from the commission actually advocated for in my date after the one picked by the commission how the respondent said to him in my day picked by the arbitrator was wrong and we think it should be august thirtieth which is again it is totally separate day picked by the commission in this case i think it's very difficult for the response to come and make an argument for him in my state they themselves do not agree with all the commissions that bound by that i mean their only you temporary they were going to say she was it in the money on august fifth when she wanted it to work which won't fair i think when you look at the full duty compared to all the other medical evidence and all the other evidence in the case that is against manifest way the evidence because and look at the medical evidence and you look at the medical notes of the medical opinions that the picking of the obvious fish twenty thirty eight it simply goes against all the evidence in the case except for the the released a full duty everything else points to other dates including the respondents own view of the case of cells i mean that the respondent was monitoring and approving the treatment after august fifth twenty thirteen this is approved by occupational medicine i can patients medicine is necessarily occupational laid they were proving it not only approving authorizing it but they were checking in with actual respondent who was monitoring it improving and signing off on the treatment the petition was undergoing in addition to that dr bernard he said that some of the treatment going into twenty fourteen was related to the accident itself so when you look at that and everything else in the case i don't think the august fifth twenty thirteen date makes any sense it would do so with the use of my argument is that she is not in mine and in she's needs to undergo the more accurate with the fact i think you i think you should check her aggregation and that her it was a minor strain or spring i think if you look at it if you look at dr barry's report really close to waffles on a lot of that use a lot of s this accident there was no recommendation for physical therapy which ocean or hadn't been recommended for injections surgery had not reckoned been recommended and again this comes down to what exactly what condition she had prior to this accident part of this accident she had complaints of right hip pain and so i had a pain and she was on pain medications and that's it and after this accident she has complains of left hip pain low back pain pain going down to elect leg physical therapy is recommended injections are recommended ultimately surgery this is a clear aggravation or pre right sided siaca could consist of pain are with stemming from the lower back so she understood that but she still denied any symptoms or approach to a lower back she didn't inform any of her physicians that she had this prior treatment despite the fact that it was a little more than ten days prior to her work incident certainly something that's relevant and responding doesn't deny that we initially authorized this treatment but we were not aware that she had  in the notes that she'd been experiencing similar symptoms about two years prior so this is something it's not just a few visits this is something that was standing she has a prior history so there's only if you know this you would know her by the well and i don't know if i would go that because in these types of cases when you're looking at it typically you go out and get an idea and i think we may have what we may have said is we're not authorizing any further treatment until we get that opinion back so i think it would have played out a little bit differently and you know one of the important things that we highlight everything the mere acceptance of the initial treatment is an admission of liability we can still go back and dispute so we get this information we get dr bernard resign in the opinion and ultimately the commission physicians that examined her that were aware of this preexisting history was dr bernard he was the only one with the notes prior to her injury or prior to her alleged august or her july nineteenth two thousand and thirteen incident declined to perform that if indeed she needed any additional treatment back in early also strongly disagreed and i think this is worth looking a little bit further back to christ testimony but i think his opinion is pretty clear regardless he doesn't believe that he doesn't think she's a surgical candidate and i think what the commission is doing in this case is they're looking at all the evidence together and they're saying she's has these prior complaints she's got these issues with credibility dr bernard he had a chance to review these prior records and i think looking at the evidence here there certainly are evidence to support that conclusion and i think that's what this case really comes down to is this is a determination of credibility with respect to petitioner it's her burden of proof case and the fact mere fact that she continued to treat is largely irrelevant because she had the symptoms before the time she had similar complaints referrable to her lower back prior to the incident she denied that and you know it just creates questions lens and really there's other factors obviously to looking at when someone reaches into my but in this case they say we just can't trust her complaints about whether our trust your testimony about whether  related are preexisting they found that i was fifty thousand and thirteen day she was released a full duty that's a more objective measure rather than relying on the testimony and she was able to for her her job use at that point and she had been performing them until her terminations for an unrelated issue and that's what the crux of this this case comes down to is there enough evidence to support decision and the respondents position is that there's simply enough evidence in the  testimony and i think if you look at the notes and you look at the testimony it supports her as more i believe it does she didn't know she denied ever having it should i think it's very important to look at what she actually denied what was asked of her she was asked a trial whether she had a low back pain she denied having low back pain she admitted prior to this accident she had a right hip pain which is exactly what they know is that the prior notes from before this accident the very for the very top of the note says a primary complaint right problems she was having post accident had nothing to do with her right side it's ironic pain every every no you look at her post accident has to do with low back pain left hip pain left five pain left calf pain and left ridiculous and i'm going to assume that she didn't tell the bernardi actually said that was what he interpreted that was what the notes suggested is what he actually testified to because i asked him directly in his testimony if she had prior low back pain his testimony was clearly know and his testimony was that by looking at those prior notes and seeing that she had a right hip pain he interpreted that she had low back pain and that was his interpretation of those notes not that he's done to correct that but that goes directly to the not have the back so it's very hard to say she has a credibility issue whenever she was asked to testify whether she had low back pain said no and all the records actually support that including doctors are at any event you do have to agree with what the commission is the sole judge of the prior medical treatment was he had them so he had those notes he didn't have a lot of the other ones we had enough to write a report that he wrote he had those notes and he still found that she was not him ah on august twenty third team so it's very hard to reconcile his report knowing hour i would not i certainly think it's difficult for a commission to find it in my day that no one in this case is recommend may include like i said before so you can see the reasoning was really rather simple but he said it was a