to her left knee was from her injury at work on june twenty ninth two thousand and seven its finding was against the manifest way the evidence in that regard yes she previously enjoyed her left knee on may twenty two thousand and seven while playing soccer but by her fall at work on june twenty nine the same year julie needed one day off work for the soccer injury and resumed a full forty hour workweek fast pace her feet as a supervising working manager at a wendy's restaurant she needed no support of bracing what was the date of the year the date of the soccer injury was made twenty two thousand seven you know the date of and besides these opinions by the radiologist and or the people surgeon that did not include any letter or minister from the soccer injury there was also no exam findings during maintain she falls because she slips in a pool of water that was splashed as overflow around a cleaning station and she actually this time here's a pop when you need twists  she can no longer stand she can no longer walk she has to be removed carried by her husband from the restaurant she never again can stand during this entire course of time and sewing for her care from and continues forward with a protracted scheduled surgery date on the books about ms perez then goes to a second choice surgeon in the hopes of a similar surgery on his schedule and that is where contrary opinion correct no bed to give a consistent opinion well in his report he gives no opinion in connection with the existence or nonexisten which he and some told me meant that there could be no tailor to either or a tear to either in his opinion allowed him to say that he believes but nor the reason that the soccer ok before he draws a conclusion he says in summary this examinees sustained an injury while playing soccer earth i made twenty two thousand and seven and she had tear this entire case up until the moment he went live in his deposition was in the mind's eye of the responded and in the mind's eye of this i and me the soccer injury and he believes the surgery included the fellow medial minuscule chair that had been suspected by the radiologist that had been suspected by the g p that had been suspected by the perot all of that and that had been suspected by the radiologist and however he never had the benefit of the awkward report and in the medical records that he reviewed if you read both of his reports he marches through dr shafer's records thinking he's got an easy one because like you say your honor jotter shaper says it's some point you know what we're going to see it surgery but i don't think there's any further problem here and then after surgery she comes in and he writes in his medical record we discuss the medial miniscule tear he doesn't say which medium in this case you have to have the operative ever realizing there was a lateral tear his entire thirteen pages of single spaced reports do not contain a single reference to the fact that a lateral tear was repaired not a medial tear that should be a big oh my gosh any doctor we all went in expecting to see a medial we found a lateral and we didn't find a small one we found a huge one one that there is no way could be missed on an m r i in it's multi directional it goes to what  leah's called the red red zone to the right right zone and all of it couldn't even be say and dr shafer credibly at the day of surgery dictates a report saying we knew going in here that we didn't know exactly what we find there was no point in reading and mariah or bobo we didn't expect to see based on the prior our right because it wasn't barry says because it wasn't there so your position is  tear depending upon where you're talking he says because there's an artifact there might be a tear that i can't see where he says so this is a patchwork we don't even have a miserable opinion at that he says the m segment this guy and that's my point is he never says he sees a tear on the lateral he says based on these m r i findings which i can't tell if there is or isn't a chair the here which was never to school was in his report could there possibly be a finding of no causal connection based on the evidence in this record neither with nor without in my estimation the morning your honesty and you know you can on behalf of the employer wendy's i'm going to go right to dr levin's august nineteenth two thousand and nine report that is in the appendix of the initial brief op page five page eight of his same report aug nineteenth two thousand and nine we ask you advise your opinion as to a causal relationship between the claimed work injury and the surgery that was performed answer there is no relationship between her alleged work injury and her surgery the basis of this opinion was stated in my comments above were the surprise whereas the lack of a disclosure that the lateral  i'm june twenty eighth twenty zero seven after the alleged injury and to twenty nine he commented that he did not believe that her recent work related injury would cause her any further significant problems with her left knee other read the birth right and at the end of the first report i don't know if you noticed he says but i can't but i can't draw any conclusions therefore that report doesn't have any conclusions and it it's nice that he le and in that report there's no mention of or no acknowledgement that he knows there's a lot on in this case there and then we see his conclusion which is completely harmonious with everything so he's now doesn't have that report in his hand anymore he's not revealing anything in their report as hand anymore and if we have to stretch to find why i shouldn't be surprised to see just that he recounted he didn't give an opinion he recounted a fact in a report months earlier that's not in this report then i am surprised that it is so it's a surprise by definition would have to reach to find a way to not surprise me yet as we've been discussing there's a section in his report where he's answering the questions giving his opinions that's his only free hand in his free hand heals so i got at with you on this issue  meniscus he expressed an opinion about a medial manesar gus and at the reference was not that he knew of anything but that he's summarizing the medical records as he saw them and that what you're referring to is one report ago and eleven pages earlier in that one report oddly missing from the report that was supposed to be his opinions it at the end of the