fails to even recognize that six important pieces of evidence word method which are the crux of the response case and yet there is not one word in her decision discussing them either criticizing them or even mentioning that they exist i think it can raise a new friends whether or not the arbitrator even considered the evidence little known found that these were the sevens was not credible no i can't say that for sure but the fact of the matter is this was a very very important part of our case six pieces of evidence from three different positions yet i had no idea how the arbitrator viewed these pieces of evidence i have no idea how the her opinion that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the surgery by directly attacking dr espinosa as opinions she is making an independent determination that all of this knows offers a great deal of testimony in his deposition in his medical records supporting the need for the surgery the average reader goes out of her way to tear down the doctor's opinions finding the need for surgery basically saying the doctor hate you're wrong and a very serious issue she's playing basically the role physician herself saying you know what this doctor doesn't know he's talking about this doctor says there's enough evidence to support and of course that they look at it well and that's why i'm here to argue that i don't believe it makes any sense especially when the doctor's opinion is so pivotal in this case does this mean need to surgery that's what's pivotal here we have that to you our sufficient evidence in the record for other doctors said that they viewed all the medical evidence there and there was sufficient basis to find that it there is no need for the surgery the average it was wrong to find that there was saying that she needs more evidence to say that the surgery is reasonable and necessary and she's not saying that the doctor isn't reasonable when the necessary she saying that she does not have enough they are justified in award for prospective medical treatment the average reader here at my pinion abuse of discretion because she in my opinion assuming the role of being a physician she is deciding which evidence which medical opinions she wants to agree with she's not she's not judging she's not our wing the differences in conflicting opinions just saying i'm going to tap that are able to act or be she's picking and choosing how she thinks this course of treatment should proceed in the future it's not her determination to that there is no need for the surgery but she says she is choosing a third path on her own and she's looking at all the medical records and all the medical have been cells taken by orders of the doctors and she's saying that the doctor the she finds credible the doctor that she surgery this is the trigger but yet she's also finding the trigger is right and on the threshold issue of causal connection and it to me it makes no sense with plenty of evidence here all the other doctors review the evidence that  reports no one said i don't have enough evidence to determine whether or not surgery is worth it they all had enough evidence even introductory reports with that by the way and there's conflicting findings