commission of foreign mistreatment stating that on december first of two thousand ain't bad again treatment and providing a history consistent with her testimony at trial in regards to her injury that's what the arbitrator i submit to you that is completely inaccurate if you look at the records in this case from the doctor at marquis manacles which was dr kraus as well as every other physician she saw after the history states that petitioner was marking eight to nine and a half hours per day that she was doing motions with her life and that she have a twister body that she has discussed our home with her on that is what she told the doctor she told the doctor that some time three weeks before this first homeland twisting and not all of them none of them not on have causation traumatic injury nov seventeenth cardboard marker cardboard isn't in any of these records but that's what petitioners testifying to trauma nation that they made i'm not asking you to overrule that what i'm simply saying is you don't we dr bernstein find you don't believe you are far right but you said you believe the medical records but you're not following what they say if you believe the michael records done please look at what they say they say november time for injury they do not say anything regards to causal connection opinion as of the seventeenth they don't say anything in regards to an injury to the left arm from a conveyor belt they simply say she started records that were submitted but there's a disconnect between the medical records in the claimants testimony of the injury and the treatment how everything happened so how do you respond to that using the i was going to correct it but they don't really support you look at them closely the claim was position well i fully agree with your honor that there is something of a disconnect on its face there appears to be a bit of a discipline act between the initial intake notes of dr gaddis and the petitioners testimony at trial let's take a look at what d and a left arm began approximately three weeks ago on or about november tenth two thousand eight proximately three weeks on or about the test all right so as far as when the pain started were about a week off i submit that that's not particularly on realistic in light of the circumstances for the petition drive election to be off by on or about a week and does not raise a grand question in my mind as to what she's talking about with this situation have been couple of other histories in the record is the history of taken by doctors earn a victim as the history of dr bernstein both of those stayed relatively similar things she's got a repetitive job she had and using dr support of its words there was an acute record whether dr bernstein is taking his own independent history or whether he simply relying on the histories previously taken by dr guess we don't know now but none of this is very inconsistent  you might wonder will you have the chain of events but then you have the medical test more that seems to be inconsistent with gives so you just totally regard to disregard medical testimony or how do you reconcile i guess within the minute this way to begin consistency i don't  regard the medical testimony i think the medical testimony is very important in this case we heard from in the records no doctors were to as we heard in the records from doctors dr bernstein now nobody ever wrote down th standard of review and accord such great deference to the commission with regards to these factual issues it is the province of the commission to resolve factual issues especially regarding conflicting medical testimony and in a situation such as this we defer to the was wrestling with a pile of what cardboard on a conveyor belt when a second pile from the left came up on the belt struck her on the left side of the body causing her to violently question that was the testimony that she gave a trial they cervical spine can be injured in almost imperceptible ways things that we would not look at as a very very traumatic incident in cost circles and all just again this is something the commission deals with on a daily basis and which is wh history of the doctor the doctor based on that history of repetitive motion or what have you stated that it appears she had cervical strain he did not have an m r i report at that time to go off so so there was no opinion on the respondent side that there was no closer connection either  arbitrator spell that out his decision so we cannot stand here now and argue well they must have been following these chains of the fines because that's not the case that's not what the decisions us and that's not what the commission affirmed finally i just want to point out councilman mentioned that