i think the basic strongest reason your honor is that there is no medical evidence supporting the players decision that the injury occurred from a military push up all the the traders  e i am easy all the evidence the medical evidence nothing supported a military push up as a cause all supported but it happened as petitioner described it at work it was burden is that the response doesn't have to prove that there was not a causal connection it was not the work related accidents your group that's correct so whether or not there was a military style push of the cause the problem doesn't she talks about that as far as the what happened at home or the military pushup matter as far as that i think was addressed and as far as she doesn't refer to them anything regarding a medical it's showing a problem with his credibility we have the orthopedic surgeon dr oz testified that it certainly could have been masked as far as the way history reported it and you have the first two doctors he's going to work every day on light duty that's clear he's going to work every day after the injury i do as far as if there was one or two that were postpone it he described it in the record as far as the reason he was about going to the to the treatment it's clear as far as the doctors say say that he certainly had a condition a shoulder condition right away and as far as the treatment that you mentioned earlier as far as  your client's faster in cross examination whether he ever told anyone that he injured himself at home in intended to for trade it work related that was false did you not see that was a possibility i don't have that cite as far as what question he was asked the question i have the answer because i but i believe i'm fairly certain what the question was if he was asked about if he had any other claim or if he he's asked about the work injury and and about the military push ups of the answer but the claim to me is not clear as far as what he's referring to really none of this has anything to do with the arbitrary of the commission finding that was the own problems besides their and i think if you refer to what they what they said at the hearing to me that would be as far as compared to what mr donahoe race they said to him mr dunne who was working with the adjuster going to claim a work accident and he said i don't recall i'm just trying to be honest and i think that the stuff follow up question was are you sure you ever did that and he said it's a possibility now i'm not going to record it i have a record with me but i could find in our office  that i think was the follow up question are you sure essentially so i think what this case boils down to is is the commission's role in judging the credibility witnesses assigning way to their testimony and dr if this is from the evidence th record certainly the commission could draw in different entrances i don't i mean i don't think so but certainly it's a possibility the episode dru's that mr hart was not credible that he had an injury at home and that he plans  claim his injury lead to work accident which was not what those findings are supported by i think the polish of the evidence the record certainly are not against the manifest with him as with considering mr dunn's testimony the original statement by miss miss miss was cervical injury in arizona and he never had a shoulder injury in arizona so to me i think the arbitrator stretch to to find that not credible because all the specific examples of what you refer to i think the record shows that it was not a question of credibility it was either a question of not me calling or at the record said something very specifically contrary to the arbitrator's conclusion based on all this is just one this point no change around you right seven hundred one of the doctors talk about any anything new in anything intervening on july seventh so that it has all these facts in the record and from the testimony show that it should have very