that important but yes we're responding my opponent makes a very important in the case so yes i would say that the distance he dropped is not important at all and the doctors who testified for the claimant said that the distance he dropped is not important at all they are afraid or felt that the discrepancy in the history as to how far off the table how far the scaffold drop is a defect that the petitioner cannot overcome and therefore there must be a conclusion that there was no accident heat so the risk of harm is arising out of the activities the cable did break and the scaffold did fall a short distance that's an accident well d sorry i don't understand your question well could you not have an accident that everyone agrees on that it not be a compensable accident well no other condition no because the term accident in worker's compensation is a legal term connection it may well be that the trier of fact would find that there is no causal connection between my client's disability and the events that happened on that day  however is the analysis needs to be step by step if you find that there is no accident the question of cost of connection doesn't exist you can't have a causal connection to an accident that didn't happen on page fourteen of the arbitrator's decision it indicates consequently the articulator find the petitioner has failed for sustain the further burden of proving causal connection yes the was no causal connection and it could be that the commission if you remember this case back it could be that the commission would find instructions said they find that an accident occurred and then issue a decision consistent with that fine what basis would we make defining this case is here we force counsel and whether that the decision of the commission is against the m with his activities it's undisputed that the cable broke in that the scaffold fell that's an accident something happened to this man he experienced a embarrassing to me but my client was not a credible witness he rambled on he gave inconsistent statements he gave inconsistent histories that doesn't change the fact that there are some facts that are agreed upon and those facts clearly show you fent happened which is called an accident under workers comp law and it is completely consistent with vapid commission might then fine that medically there is not a causal connection between the accident but i want the commission to to come to i want the commission to be confronted with the task of saying there is an accident now let's determine cause of connection they didn't do that well no because if they fi accident as the first statement in the harbor freighters decision is simply wrong and when we consider manifest weight of evidence so what did you consider one other aspect to it that i think nobody mentions it is absolutely required that a decision of the court has to be based on a per ponderous of the evidence the arbitrator's decision has to but it's simply not correct to say that no accident place it might be correct to say that there is no causal connection but we haven't properly gotten to that issue until we have a finding made meaning the worker's comp commission was wrong in my opinion in finding that there is no causal connection the simple facts are that this gentleman was working every day until this and why can't they think that they can't and that's why my primary argument is that the issue of accident was wrongly determined and i would suggest to you that if the commission took a second look at the case and said yes there was an accident their analysis on the rest of it might be different because be argument about a preexisting condition right has a doctor's credibility is to question their simple facts here the simple facts are that he was not a skillful something happened that's an accident after that he was hospitalized for several weeks it as an accident it's only later when big the specialists two of them who came up with contrary opinions one talking about a preexisting injury and the other saying that the case reefs of being a fraud from the from the inception he had testimony that he didn't have a current smear prior he had testimony that he was able to walk perfectly and have no no issues no problem whatsoever all that testimony was cut for sure lighten the truth would do him good he went to social security he said he could have a valid cognisant thought but told everybody else that he couldn't carry  dissent thought he couldn't carry on the train of thought to keep him locked up that's what he said everybody when he gets into the arbitration hearing the things that he put down the social security were all of thought he attempted to sell his vehicle to the investigator very very clearly spoke english without any problem could walk up and down stairs without any difficulty whatsoever but the fact that appear before this court are the eighteen different should be allowed in different histories to eleven different doctors petitioners histories when probably dropping one condition will be it makes absolutely no difference one way or the other if they found accident or not but in this particular case even found no accident he found no accident based on our in our  expert excuse me that clearly indicated that the fall in the middle where the cable was broken would fall at the most nine three quarters inches where  that which is kind of intriguing that witness is outlandish that you might call it outlandish incredulity lack of credibility can't even mess up the doctor's opinion and so that granted that he is totally incredible as to his this to how this occurred or whatever but there's a doctor's opinion that he has  ship i guess that's what we're hearing and that we have credible doctors think he has a condition that we don't care about his credibility i think that what i heard i think in response to your question i don't necessarily agree with opposing counsel that every accident directly relates to end because you're still supported by cables coming down on the far end well so what the way he explained it is like a ripple effect there's no exit the position was not credible in terms of how the accident happened that's why they me i am arguing that an accident took place i am arguing for an injury is not part of an accident but that's the accident under the act is the two factors you have an incident you have an injury and so that when the commission's findings no what accident but in the commission's findings there there are multiple ways to look at it but be arbitrator's decision in its first happens just flies in the face of logic it's it's just wrong to say