good afternoon may please the court counsel my names as well the rodriguez represent a heart attack heart attack that lead heart attack to the heart happens when tissue guys are in this case my clients are for that specific trauma on friday october twenty third seems to be  argued that seems to be debatable according to the commission's decision they didn't believe he ever had an answer go nothing to support it put his own flesh and your honor contrary testimony by the way by your honor again with my analogy of the heart attack if i have a heart attack right now because of the stress of munder i'm going to go to the hospital and it will be days before they will know that i was before you for a stressful event and then two months later he testified it was the obvious pain during that period of time but he was in a lot of pain he did not know that the injury on friday caused  working injury for diabetic neuropathy and by letter nerve pain which he was treated you know that is totally a different system than the bestseller system in this system the best is them he suffered a trauma however slight that caused it you you keep assuming he suffered a trauma they didn't believe him so now the question becomes why is the portion of their decision that says the disbelief he ever even had an accident against the manifest weight of the the place at work yanis as he is he goes on his vacation to mexico winds up in a doctor's office in mexico the very next day all openly treated in never tells the man he had any injury at work at all although he did to me i didn't know it was diabetic he sends him back home telling him you gotta do something about this you could lose your leg he wants up at the hospital when he returns on the plane that very day he goes to the hospital and not a single mention anywhere in the hospital records of any injury at work and he loses weight on fortunately a in your expert gives a causal connection correct opinion but it means something is based on the assumption he actually had an accident it work assumes he was telling the truth when he said he had to say accidents the commission didn't believe he had the accident so the expert medical testimony on causation is really wrong to the question of whether he from the claimant and what he has to say is there any other collaborating evidence by way of any witnesses or anything else that does not stem from the claimant himself at least answer the question then we can argue the merits of medical that does that that would corroborate his statement on this day of this trial this place i experience this mechanism of them again i go back t wait if they didn't corn in your favor eat appealed he'd lose because you're me and testified that he was injured at this time and the commission chose to believe him but now the commission chooses not to believe your client i broke my toe when i stumbled and there's an x ray that same day it's i got hurt i don't know what's going on i had a pre planned vacation i go and i'm having a lot your honor it's only in the latter one that he comes up with the causation and both of those records were turned over prior to when we understand they were both and they also look askance of the fact that did the very first did the best that he could with the limited knowledge and he did not know what was going on with his life he didn't know if he got hurt at work and he did that mcneill when he was taken from the airport to mcneill this has been going on since friday i don't think there's any dispute that the man was if he had been in pain since friday there's no disputing that he went to the doctor in mexico the court hears this every day but i would be remiss if i didn't say that the issue in this case is whether the commissions act determinations are against the manifest weight of the evidence in other words is an opposite conclusion truly apparent to the commission draw a reasonable inference is permissible inferences based on the evidence i submit to the to this court the unanimous commission did so they drew a reasonable evidence as from the facts and came up with the proper conclusion when doing this down i don't think this is the case this case even involves a medical issue it doesn't involve causal connection i i think when you when you are down isn't as an issue with respect to accident is that your honour's focused climate testified that the pallets were five inches apart well i'm much taller than five foot five and weighed watch one hundred thirty five pounds and i the with the my foot is much smaller than five inches so i think what you can with what you can glean from this remainder of his shift which was only a couple hours so he goes home well he felt good enough to take a pre planned vacation later that day and that vacation was going to mexico so the next twelve hours he obviously wasn't any severe pain he felt like a good he did only a plaintiff and fly and fly to mexico now and again going getting back to your question your honor this case boils down to the fact that the claim of the not in fact i submit that the person most likely the medical provider most likely to get the proper history is the first doctor that's when things are fresh in his head no history of iraq actions the doctor scenarios no history of trauma no  goes without saying in the commission as well as the courts have it reiterated a patient is going to tell his treating physician how he got her how he or she got her because they want innately they want adequate and proper medical care in a of whom stated that the patient from indicate the patient got her work this whole this whole claim may have been cured of the patient may have said five magic words some point during his court initial course of treatment i hurt myself at work he never did every history taken a big meal maybe a hospital seems to be just a little bit different you know some of them say he had pain for a few days some of them say he paid for two months but every one of those histories that mcneil hospital given to six different doctors on the eight different occasions is consistent with one thing the common thread is that none of those history say in the case of the patient hurt himself or work you'd think after us after a fifteen day housefull zation that's what it was the patient at some point would have said i say my foot at work now i have this vascular problem doctor take care of it he shows up at the emergency room in pain no pulse on his foot and his foot was cold then  talking you just got out of a flight back in the morning from mexico is that the emergency room much at mcneil hospital at eight nine o'clock in the morning that's what we're dealing with here and i again i said and see when you take a look at the entire evidence i think the commission not only misconstrued the evidence but drew an inference that it was not proper thank you for your time t