raises that history for a couple of reasons one because he's tired of hearing my argument and two because it's concerned that at some point someone might pay some heat he may even raise it again today i suspect that's correct but i don't come before  that first week but they don't order day well no he did not there was no heat in the basement he could complete his job duties at any given time and he told john herbert he couldn't complete his job because there was no heat in the basement and yet john herbert kept calling me back to the job site to work again john hurt was the individual to whom mr tucker turned his time and john heard it was also the individual to whom mr tucker revised there was no heat in the date and that me to the one quote i would like to read to the court i put it in my reply if i think the whole case comes down to this one it's mr gloucester's handwritten log notes from the day after my client's injury when allegedly the only implication from that phrase is that in fact heat was necessary in the basement in order for jim tucker to complete his job to look let's assume it's true but doesn't this case really in terms of credibility of the witness statement and take the statement for what it's worth no he did not falsify cite records if he was necessary in the basement for jim tucker to perform his job then jim tucker was telling john pearse that jim tucker was turning his time into john heard john heard was showing up at the job site in order to figure out how come there was no heat in the basement john heard for well jim tucker wasn't getting the full day of work and john hood was the one to whom jim tucker was turning in his time if jim tucker was falsifying his time records john berger his supervisor was complicit in that well how does a this but ability he has he's working forty hours a week but it is not right well take him with the employers for knowledge and understanding the employer he's calling him back through because there's a problem of the supervisor and the claimant together off the five records that means claiming to win again i don't know how we ever got to the point where there was a formal legal conclusion that my client falsified time  records nobody nobody pressed charges nobody requested a reimbursement my client may not have been able to work a full ten hour day but he was being called back to the job site with knowledge by his employer that he was not able to work a full ten crew of carpenters in the stairwell where my client fell every minute of the day that day and as such there's no way my plank could have fallen in the stair in the stairwell but once again if you go back and look at phil's rosters handwritten no he's got a detail they bite they outline what employees what treatment he had doing what where in the building he's got carpenters in the stairwells on the monday before my client well he's got hundreds in the stairwells on the tuesday  to the best of my knowledge dr brett's expressed the did not express any opinion he expressed that such incidents could cause rupture this is i don't believe he expressed an opinion that in this particular case after seven years of at least seven years of intervening unrestricted employment as a that once again i understand my client had some issues but no one seems to pay attention to the fact that phil blosser and john herger were caught unambiguously you know in the sections to the court i said so sick of and i think also my client's testimony in and of itself come consist also when taken into consideration with the fact that he appeared in the emergency room on the day of the accident with a consistent history of injury his next doctor a week later with a consistent history of injury i think that in and of itself is also sufficient to establish in summary i feel this gentleman has a history of an injury as noted above i don't know his symptoms suggest the presence of particular irritation arising in both the cervical and lumbar spine are consistent with the diagnosis of a cervical and or lumbar disruption the symptoms are consistent with lesions noted on the above study the only history noted above is the history of the fall i think that's fairly clear that dr sen feels there's a causal connection doesn't have a history of other injuries that he does have a history of some other injuries ten seven and twenty years before the state of accident following which he was able to perform his job duties as a bike that are without restriction is manual labor job duties as a pipefitter without restriction including on for the ricky asians for this particular respondent in the two years before the seat of action including on four other occasions for this particular so again i understand i don't i cannot imagine medical causation is truly an issue before this body based on  investigation into my client's alleged fall took place on february seventh two thousand and eight is the only reference in film was hers long notice that john with mechanical insulation was here in regard to heat in the basement and i explained how and if heat was not can tell based on fille glossaries hand written long it's come prepared contemporaneously with the issues i don't get how response witnesses had misstate the truth lately there's no other explanation for it if you refill lawsuits notes and look at his testimony and john about they say that they conducted an investigation into my client's injuries on the day after my client state of accident and they say that's the sole reason that john hurt or came to the jobsite on the day after my client state of accident was in order to conduct an investigation into my client's presumably fraudulent fell on the stairs if that's what john hooker came to the job site to do then write a school losses note read the way it reads why does it say john hurt is here to discuss heat the basement and i did my best under the circumstances to cross examine the witnesses with the information i was presented at the time but in hindsight i'm not sure i needed to do too much more cross examination if you read john pilger officers notes and you look at his testimony about the interview regarding my client's injuries and the crew of carpenters in the stairwell all day long so that my client couldn't possibly have fallen down on the stairs there is no way to reconcile their testimony with the notes built losser prepared contemporaneously with the actions that are noted in his log they do not reconcile there is no way to say i met with john herbert to talk about heat and told him one here in the basement would be sufficient and then conclude that these people came to the job site to conduct a thorough investigation into my client's a legit fraudulent worker's compensation insurance they do not reckons how there's no sure you can craft the reconciles how they testify with what built officer wro and i don't get how it ended and once you figure out that phil lost friend john hurt or misstating the truth my client's testimony about is the the the alleged false of the case the time dissipate the necessary the heat necessary to complete my  client's job duties dissipates all of those issues dissipate once you figure out that phil boss or in john her group were not testifying honestly and i don't get how again there's no way to read all that consistently nobody mr weinstock has not presented to this court any way to read these quotes consistently with their life testimony and i don't know how that's an acceptable manner of behavior for respondent to engage in with normal and taking note of that situation and it question about the mine with regard to driving the claimant specifically testified at trial that he did not work for forty hour work week and even though it did not work a full forty hour workweek the skills needed time for working at  yard work wait the issue about driving through and from work he gave as a justification and stated that since i had to drive on distance from work i felt justified in submitting forty hours of the time even though that is not part of my union contract i'm not entitled to get our pay for driving through from one minute contract but that was his explanation as to why he had the time on his on the hour would you make of this general contractor my client was not on the job site twenty four hours a day seven days a week monitoring how they were sort of value their system is also somebody accurate records and obviously exact and he admits that in the end in own raises his hand to tell the truth and comes in and wise in committing perjury subject himself to a crime and makes no sense whatsoever what's in it for him to do that sold out health insurance claim forms which are in the record and on the health insurance claim form it states in box ten is the patient's condition related to employment current or previ and on the back in big black letters as if there is any misrepresentation made on this form it can result in civil and criminal penalties so basically doctor sharing her if this truly is a worker's compensation accident and he will pine that it is subjected now subjected himself to in health insurance fraud by submitting those bills to the private health insurance company under the guise that this is not related to employment setting or took a past medical history and says i believe this is not in this gentleman had not only had injured his neck before he had gotten treatment for having missouri workers compensation claim filed two of them but the one being the next he even had a doctor testify for him in that case about problems with his neck now getting back to the workers compensation cases ritually when he gave his statement  stated that he only had one fifteen years ago when we came to trial we introduced records and two from missouri into from illinois two from illinois were completely separate acts separate accidents i believe once a body as a whole i haven't seen the claim so i don't know or the settlement contract so i don't know if that person now and the petitioner would have everyone here believe that the two claims in illinois even though there are two separate settlements with two separate act separate injury numbers claim numbers are only one x in illinois even when presented and showed these documents a truck there's also other inconsistenc claims seven days before he hired an attorney is documented by the dates on the application per just in a point how can he not know seven days after that he just hired an attorney follow workers compensation claim seven days later he claim that's correct your honor she did and i disagree with that for the reasons i previously stated and as you will note in response to your question to mr weinstock about the credibility of mr it cannot be done the only conclusion you can come to that they lied i understand you've all probably made up your mind with respect to my client situation well i don't want to make that assertion but it seems to me there's been some making up of the minds with respect to my client