reinstate the decision of the original arbitrator in the case they there are there were only three parties that testified in this case and one of the parties that it involves two accidents one accident happened six eleven of all for and the second accident was one seventeen o seven that the interesting part that makes the case a little more difficult is my client had an subpoenaed my client's boss of almost twenty years a gentleman by the name of david ceased who was the foreman on the job that signed the accident report along with a coworker that was a witness name i'd got the foreman the say what i needed that i would need to coworker which is maybe was a bad decision on my part but the foreman testified after that action of six eleven or through or my client continually that they have problems in the same area the back and he said he tried to accommodate him with the easier jobs from that point six eleven with the war all the way until he retired after the second accident  just with but that's basically and and that's why i thought mr ceases testimony was the most important to relate it back to the sexual of an earth or injury these guys my guys are tough client to lose which he did in front of the commission you have to believe that the foreman came in and perjured himself he was brought in involuntary by subpoena and testified to the facts even after his retirement that the  on your desk he still continued work until he fell down the steps in the second accident that's kind of person we're talking about and it seems like we punish the people that try to do with the companies wanted to keep working as long as you can and even persisted working after that until that second down the steps and that's what the testimony russ there's absolutely no other testimony the respondent could about twenty one workers of the book department down here to testify to the contrary they bring one the only witness state in the case is dr szabo who saw my client two years after the fact and as you're on a pointed out there's no medical records for him to base an opinion on except that very first complaint and he times that he was the second accident i mean the arbitrator found that he was aggravated and it was after the second actually that when he actually stopped working saw from that point i think he was there was a temporary exacerbation but that's why my argument is so critical to go back to the stu the two the two thousand and four accident because he's already got the herniated disk december before the accident in january so i really i probably agree with their opinions that it was a party and his foreman bell stating he was injured in a and the one content june of zero four continued to have those problems so what the commission based their opinion on and i included their opinion in this record it says the company because in its direct testimony said i didn't have and use a jackhammer after that june accident so it's almost like if the shirt was all arranged but it turned out to be red we can't believe anything he said because the shirt was our engine not read did he seek any medical treatment for the two for accident which is another thing i raise in my brief every company record that i've given you in my response with my reply please can i apologize because my number there were no numbers on my original record i put every company record in and they all relate it back to the two thousand and three accident even for the protests and not include every one of those documents and there everybody relates it back to the two four accident the famine relates back and says i commentate him at that when he did go all those records related back to two thousand and four long before i was ever in the case and you know that would that i don't think that was an intentional move on the part of the client also the commission  don't know i'm going to address as even i don't think it's right is the commission question when my guy filed this case it's laws was filed within three begun criticized that when the case was filed i just i nap and here we have an sat there and saw the the foreman testified all they do is see paper and pour out of a discrepancy in the company records that maybe he was using a jack hammer maybe wasn't the thought the foreman's testimony i just think that's against the manifest w basis to find anything if they found it's all against the manifest way the testimony that's credible that firsthand witnesses were my client and it's phenomena company employee that would you know just told it like it was what does the commission based their test or base their decision of my the family is not credible in a dispensary record the client may have used the jack hammer when he should he even eat you know he kept doing the bricklayer work none of this stuff is easy but he the original accident two thousand and four to the surgery performed by dr propes in the two thousand and four action as you pointed out during college of argument no treatment for two and a half years and and writing it again i did not take that as a physician relates this current condition to the incident of two thousand and four i believe that is a history taking mechanism or avenue a must write down what does ring true here as counsel points out what the dr should bow rely on the sort of what he didn't have to rely on he has to go on what records are available and what is produced if there had been a smoking gun during the deposition  perot for example we saw him in two thousand and six to say my notes clearly reflected this man has had all these troubles and every night he goes home from work and he has to i suspect all those things i grew that then i would have read that that period of time you know would be less relevant but about the forms of a very nice man and i'm and i'm certain that when he sat down and raised his hand he believed everything he said but if you look at his actions a particular you know two and a half years he stated that this gentleman mr cox never asked for wider work he could just tell when he was having trouble he never ever sent him to the on site company dispens position that his pain was such that he couldn't do the work were two and a half years but he never sees a matter national in one on site i mean the exact records that they want to rely on about histories is the same one he didn't go to this is a hard job i don't have a doubt about it and i if we were here talking about he didn't do anything for four months i would stand up much inferior position but two and a half years in addition to the fact that he does the outside activities of polling and voting and all those other activities and i think to say i'm sure the gentleman remembered it that way but i cannot give it another weight to rebut all of the elements  that are contained in the medical records and what is  not the commission's decision was way out of bounds the notion that the second answer is responsible for the surgery i think the commission likewise recognizes we know we have a discrimination december two thousand and six second incident so we know that the core issue of the surgery has already occurred as you correctly point out the it's not enough evidence i don't believe com all of the contrary evidence that's in the medical records and what his own did from the medical records his lack of treatment his lack of last time this ability to go along with don't believe there are thank you the truth is he's made on the issue of this boarding and hunting and all that kept popping up with the commission and i understand why but this guy kept working as a bricklayer i mean they can say hunted and fished all he wanted to he was still down there without taking a day off doing hard bricklayer type work making that same complaint in the same part of the body that the foreman remembered  the way through to after the second act so on they can talk about that fishing and hunting but i don't know why that's important when the guys doing bricklayer work it's a lot more stressful and a lot heavier laboring then