conversations with other and other employees to some of which mr mueller who is the investigator who did the majority of the investigation so if you look at the video itself there are some discrepancy regarding the testimony of the petitioner and what the video shows us for somebody who allegedly has a back injury first and foremost the video there's been a big hang up where big notice the fact this is a motion active surveillance close caption  none of that so what else besides the video game that you had to show there was no exit the testimony of the other people that were kept out of that the investigation of mr lew and investigation of mr newman indicated that the fischer told other witnesses is that it took him a half hour forty five minutes to relieve the premises because he was in so much pain again when you go to the to the video surveillance you see the petitioner leaving the premises at five hundred nine kicking the door open as he leaves again this is contrary to the testimony that the witnesses statements that were given at the time of the investigation and that's it that's the thing here we have to look at this is far is how the employer looked at look at this claim at the time this thing was being investigated there was a lot of lower back and it got worse the next day as the videotape exclude that possibility the videotape was natural somebody who was in any type of distress or any type of incident recently was out by videotape there's no there's no hunching over there's no the the surveillance from the closed caption showed no activity which would indicate that he suffered an exit while in his employment his actions after the alleged accident also show that he didn't seem to have any injury as he was leaving the premises so we could eyes of the responder wanted to dial was made and if you look at the other information that was kept out of trial you have statements are other witnesses who again contradict the testimony of the petitioner in what he told other people regarding the accident the time frame in which it took him to leave the premises they were going to half hour forty five minutes compared to what the what the surveillance a good thing close caption video shows you that it wasn't them again when you look at these things you look at it is the employer to look at the time of the of the nile and whether or not it was illegitimate doll and i can there's a legitimate down here there's no other way you can put this and there's a legitimate doubt there is no it from a there's no nothing in the regarding so when's history an accident things that nature and those things were heard by this court and sometimes people aren't always truthful and when you have the objective evidence that was presented to was a physical visible reaction like you keeled over he could have had a problem that was that was that was part of it also looking at the totality of the investigations that were performed by mr we will and by mr newman there was also says legitimate doubt this has to be looked at by how the employer if you at the time of this thing with the night and would find the part was in the knowledge of the employer at the point in time when benefits petitioner told that the x misfires time it took him to leave there are forty five minutes of the promise which wasn't the case they've gotten the activity of the fish or even the premises with kicking the door open and they have other videotape demanding that he limp or fall over keel over and grab his back this isn't a burden in illinois they were not required to see this and videotape to pay benefits in this case they did and it never claimed to experience disabling back pain he felt the tightness in a warmth that gradually progressed into his back locking up the next morning there was no a sharp pain there was no grabbing his back he never testified to those things occurring i would submit to you that this is often the natural progression bad strain to gradually progress over time as discussed by counsel plaintiff relies heavily on the surveillance video and here i think the commission said it best when they submitted additional findings that this video did nothing to undermine th video the plaintiff makes claims about how long it took you know the defendant to leave and what he was doing during that time we don't have an hour of that video we have two men both saying we were there for an hour an hour video was not provided to the court only six minutes of did conduct interviews those interviews were not admitted into evidence and when i think what's important about the interviews that mr lugo conducted is that mr goodloe did not testify that this information impacted his denial at all m argues that he testified that the claim was suspect because he didn't appear injured on video at no time did mr who long for testimony that these witness statements were important to the denial at all that they were any basis for the decision of the denial mr lowe said he didn't appear injured on video he wanted to see the defendant keel over he wanted to see him grab his back and fall down and that wasn't the facts of the case mister grocer examination video he wanted to see more than that he also admitted that he was an expert in back injuries so i'm not sure how he was even supposed to know what it was that he was supposed to be looking for as far as symptomology not being a physician on say where defendant was injured his investigation as he testified to it also no mention of any interviews with anyone mr newman never interviewed anyone the defendant wasn't in interviewed mr killen was interviewed mr newman's investigation enough and enough movement to activate these cameras most of the clips you see the claimant come in on a forklift the video goes blue and you see him leaving a forklift question i mean you said there was a there were video that the investigator taken them approximately an hour to put all of these cabins away in this oddball cooler and they had done various duties and then we see the defendant even five of nothing the only video that we are provided with here is from four forty to forty forty four and then again he reviewed it and now or a video he said he reviewed videotapes from before what we stopped from when they returned until four forty he had seen video he admitted he saw the defendant lifting barrels i mean that is very clear in the transcript mr newman admitted that but does the video show kicking the door did you see that honestly i hate it when we try this case a long time ago i don't really what i recall is that it was like a swinging door i didn't i'm not under the impression that that was  a vigorous activity that required so much force to force the story over and it was you know like one of those like a suit you know easily swung open it didn't seem to be that difficult to me and it didn't seem to be something that just because i doing a lot you know and i think would brings me to another point is that he was able to do this route all day you know plaintiff is trying to suggest that at some point this happened somewhere else but there's no time frame for that to have happy he ran his route  these eighty barrels this day he calls his coworker mystery killing twenty minutes after he leaves the warehouse that day there's no other time for something else to occur it's not like he went home he went to bodybuilding or weightlifting and had something happened there because there's no time for that he immediately complains of this to his coworker who credibly testifies that he called him twenty minutes on his way home he and even arrived home yet there's no other timeframe for something else to have occurred at the plate is evidence is void of substantial grounds to dispute the liability here you know it's not acting in good faith i don't think to demand proof beyond all certainty beyond all reasonable doubt  the actions in requiring that kind of proof we don't want to set a precedent where a claim that has to fall down and videotape in order to have an accident here and requiring that it isn't reasonable in vaccination is i think it was especially unreasonable ind when it comes to not paying for treatment that was already authorized they sent him to the company clinic where they send work related injuries and it says on the slip to be treated for work related injuries they sent him to kind of help and then didn't pay bill they authorized him for an m r i told him where to go get it and then didn't pay for the m r i they scheduled him for an independent medical examination didn't tell him it was cancelled he still showed up there you know so saying that you know all they were so nice not to do test for penalties being reasonable just because you do an investigation does not mean that your actions are reasonable and that investigation does not show any doubt ok the video the investigation as it was testified to by mr  and mr newman showed him with barrels it showed him doing what he claimed to have been doing given this overwhelming evidence that i think the penalties were warranted in this case and this is a unanimous finding by the commission that petitioner told them and his actions after the election incident the statements that were that were rejected include those from kurt poacher who indicated that the fisher told him it took him thirty minutes to walk to his car he was in so much pain from shouldn't but even believe you take those things out you still have the other things that we're looking at as far as what was decided regarding the reason why this matter was not accepted regarding his testament mark regarding his testimony and this is  the closed captions railings we showed information contrary to what the official testify to what he claims to took place they had statements from other people who who were taken into totality as far as why this matter was the nine i don't know