than any other case where the witnesses don't answer the phone or i would argue this particular case is different and that we have issues with regard to the petitioners testimony i'm practically every single prior back injuries we say a case in a brief stating that symptoms of a preexisting condition that could be aggravated by normal daily activity should not be compensable and that's what the medical evidence seems to that he didn't know what his injury was from this is pretty logical since he had a significant history of preexisting conditions of course he didn't know what his injury was from he probably just figured it was one of his many ailments  he also didn't prove any causal connection his treating doctor rather than stating this was a work related injury for which he was treating and we noted that there were chronic problems chronic back problems additionally preexisting condition and that's on top of the fact that although norris we have met is not normally a bother to a claim petitioner did not provide his employer with notice of any work related injury he simply told his employer that he was injured he was sick his employer had no idea that that he was claiming injury as a result of some alleged work accident and then he specifically informed the supervisor i was hurt a foundation for their admissibility i don't believe that they were they were as they were listed as having been subpoenaed and in the record in note that was signed from a nurse that was not indicative of any work related accent and simply stated that the petitioner it was to be off of work  law this is a matter of first impression we believe we could not find any case law that said specifically that it needed to be a physician's report however the code does specify that that that the physician and  any other person is the person who should be authorizing this sort of note and as a public policy matter we believe that where the this court to lower its standard such that it has sure could be taken off of work by a nurse or she has no set were signed by a nurse that were and also notes that were apparently electronically signed by dr come but she did not actually visit with him until the twenty seventh i see a lot of time thank remember my understanding of the situation is that on november sixth my client's mr dickerson i'm presented to his family doctor or i'm he called to make an appointment basically they told him dr  unavailable and that he could only see or was only available to see nurse director eric the physician's assistant i guess or a nurse practitioner he when she took him off work on november six november ninth then i believe there was an electronically signed off work slip i'm taking of this truck from dr koop up november twelfth i believe according to my reading and understanding no transcript in the records there was an electronic plea dictated note in the computer from dr paul so taking him off work  those in council did touch on that this specifically says you know the treating physician who is a medically licensed doctor are asked to sign in writing and not electronically in fact a chiropractor can also claiming well i believe so your honor i mean our claim made an attempt to go to his doctor or his doctor obviously entrusted his patients to this nurse practitioner who did see patients and who is doctor monitor obviously she did feel that off work sleep was necessary and dr obliged i mean later on did sign one signed a couple so therefore i don't think that you should penalize the fisher because dr and then specifically then moving on to some other points that counsel proud of in terms of the first thing we're talking about the due process of violation in the bifurcation as opposed to the continuance it is simply my understanding that  the respondents attorney did present for trial he was ready for the trial and he made no objections before the trial started his witnesses were on standby so therefore i'm not sure what what due process rights were a lim rebuttal testimony from what the doctor testified to and the arbitrator and then declare case actually disallowed the rebuttal testimony to claim it was there in court and you know was obviously available to testify and it was overturned at the pope level in this particular case is completely different the witnesses were not there they were not in court they had every opportunity to meet the notice of the hearing was sent out in a timely fashion so that what happened he saw the respondents attorney questioned him had no evidence though to support any other conclusions the arbitrator found him totally credible and made the decision based on that in the evidence that was presented at trial and now their response are simply trying to have a new trial i suppose and some new evidence and have new witnesses testify which they could have done initial so because of all those those correct which we won the true correct which can see that point but i would argue emphatically concede no no and by that care here is here here's what here's why if a petition or simply presents an electronic signature by a doctor we have no evidence regarding what was entailed in obtaining that signature we don't know about the examination that took place we don't know anything about the person who actually looked at the petition or oh you know that if him in the box essentially such that any petitioner could go to practically anybody and be authorized to get t t d payment without regard to the person who's examining the petitioner and their qualifications