widely constituted substantial evidence busy aggravation injury to nd the l j improperly disregarded key medical evidence scenario the question hinges on can the nd employer show that the nd injury did not aggravate accelerate or combine with the prior injury to result in discipline and i'm citing the strong deposition but on page eleven of your message exhibit number seven dr browne acknowledged that he only reviewed medical reuss september th two thousand and eleven that's less than two months after the two thousand and eleven injury on testified in october two thousand and sixteen because he didn't review any record number of two thousand and eleven we know he did not review the m r i images of the lumbar cervical spine after two thousand and one dr brown's report also does not suggest that he reviewed any of the x ray film after the two thousand and eleven injury dr brown's opinions are unreliable because he lacked the medical evidence necessary to provide the foundation for the causation but also because his opinions are inconsistent of the aggravation injury and the cause dr brown a pint on page fifteen of you message exhibit number thousand and eleven injury may have caused temporary exacerbation of claimants a pain in the back where the claimant had a lumbar strain from trying to jerk away d while his hands were crushed under d a heavy c correctly cited by the forward by the board on page four but incorrectly applied a temporary exacerbation of symptoms to a lumbar strain would be in under the aggravation and you are missing exhibits you mess exhibit fifteen page one they specialize in interpret m r i film and imaging there is no information on his qualifications that would eleven event is critical in this case and it's something that dr kagan did not address and maybe didn't even review with respect to dr band why the rd doctor he also failed d to reconcile this august th two thousand and eleven injury d would be enough in the lumbar spring that of d the consensus of medical opinion in this case support was possible would support an allegation done by focusing on the wrong question support the fact that his neck and back had improved significantly to some degree and under the aggravation stand all you need some improvement and then w l j disregarded dr iman's opinion of the training doctor more d than thirty years and certainly within his right to wear the credibility of the evidence and the witnesses and there is no requirement that he provide special treatment if there's no further question to you same time for about  court judgement you can on the exact problem with this in your question which is the substantial evidence rule basically makes this an argument for a rosenow it found sealand was denied that it meant if its review board affirmed sealand then filed almost identical brief in this court seeking the same the noble review of the evidence that was that we presented a trout both parties a trial problem presented substantial evidence regarding the aggravation case and the standard is that the administrative law judge is exclusively entitled d to assess both the weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses including experts and judge rosenhaus opinion that deals with specificity with regarding this with regard to the substantial evidence of both sides presented both based on the evidence that the judge reviewed both sides tried the case presented experts the one thing i'd like to point out with regard to the experts is that dr brown that they refer to was c lance a doctor they hired him both before and after the accident to review to examine and review all of the records that they sent him and he determined that there was no exacerbation or exaggeration and that was one of the stronger parts the judge rosen relied on another being the fact that the claimant proved to be less than credible in his testimony that's been kind of been trying those for thirty five years and it was remarkable out not credible the claim it was in a significant part of judge dr i'd min's opinions regarding aggravation were related to the plight of the claimants subject of complaint complaints of pain for example the claimant when confronted with dr i didn't records it said he was complaining of extreme pain on every visit up to the time of the two thousand and eleven accident said well somebody in d ivans office must forged my name to those records that he signed off on saying he was under extreme pain before the accident we got affidavits from doctor i've been to office and the person that he said fords the records and obviously that unions and already but however in his deposition he said that he took off because he didn't want to screw up so security disability benefits and we confront him with that he said the core porn or most of the lied and stuck that in there at random and so we had no credibility with regard to dr ivan and dr and claiming that that's what this case turned on the credibility of the experts reviewing the objective evidence in the medical files and it really comes down to that and i think judge i hate to only take that much time but i think this was fairly clear based on the substantial evidence that was presented at trial if you have it if you have any questions for me i'll obviously that the proper analysis wasn't done i greet or get judged the a o j had the authority had the discretion to make determinations on the claim its credibility the credibility of the evidence promis