reasons for this number one the primary issue is a need to doctor will challenge and that is primarily a question of statutory construction you want to hear me arguing about i am nice for medical treatments the providers are all kid medicals in this field you brought the issue of the two physician rule to the attention of the arbitrator specifically yet here you have not tried the case i believe that that was in the proposed decision it was supervisor he is not identified further than that you simply refer to his andrea's waterloo claim or say about how she got there that she said she said she went to the staffing department and released by premier occupational health returned to work that day and she did not return to work subsequent to that she began the independent line of treatment chronologically now with dr reid on july twenty fourth two thousand and nine saw him again until july twenty eighth two thousand she returns a career occupational health on august fourth two thousand and nine at least the bad visit is an independent choice she's not working for us anymore she'd already exercised first independent choice with d back there she's violating the two physician will hasten say that if he she goes back there any point after that somehow that's that's not her but that employers are just and it's your own independent choice and it's my answer that is no i don't have while yes i mean she's she's actually sign saying we have no control over her we have no control over premier occupational health is she simply she simply choosing to treat that it is a medical facility she's a free woman and she's she can do t that to get to detail or philosophical or deep into this but if if somebody goes to a facility they like the doctor they're with they have a reporting to you then they couldn't go back there without being in jeopardy of violating this wall even though they with in this case right here i do think it is a separate line and ali you know i think that i think i think it doesn't compass wolf and i think but also a compass is pluto's wall which she not just that she didn't work but that she was unable to and that's that's why our arguments with regard to submitting to restrictions sauce are val but there was another thing that happened at days on page thirty one of the transcript they apologize for not putting this in my response and what happens is they responded to her injury her mother who's your coworker in the stipulation of counsel at that time because you know we were questioning misread read as by the mother being fired that day and they stipulated and i am i reading now verbatim on page thirty one of the transcript she staffing terminated their job they told her coworker her own mother and i think any reasonable person was injured at work and strangely i hit jobs like this but never work with my mother and work with my brothers they fire my brother when i go to the hospital for an injury  and tell me jobs over any reasonable person would say yes the job is over for me till so you have case law that says that he is entitle assume that her job is over without any further communication with the employer no what i do have  common sense i hope a couple people sake no but i think a reasonable inference there and one drawn by the commissioners and the arbitrator the circuit court was me her coworker live with her it was her own s everywhere is a take team where they can't do something that prohibits them from maybe they liked her better than her mother speculate what else they could be but i think it was a rational decision made by her they don't want me  team by any doctor correct ok all right i said and then i think what you're looking at and i agree that is is sort of the issue here a reasonable belief based upon her mother being told longer available was that since you do need sex in general work was no longer available for her but i think any rational person in the situation would find the same thing i think any rational person a position to say this was done in retaliation don't argue it before the arbitrator but you place it in your statement of exceptions of before the commission no i don't know if it's forfeit only when you don't raise it before the commission or who fail to raise it before the supreme court that i can't let it go without being said on the having kids it's bolingbrook hospital visit she wasn't taking up work after that emergency room visit i know or we're trying to discuss this is a is a very emergen situation here in russia about crutches and she had no choice and and all this but it would stay three week or she'd be three months after our accident she wasn't taking off work after this and she relates her symptoms to a pain shot