testified in the trial that as a housekeeper she is responsible for cleaning mopping dusting writing tables stocking she was responsible for vacuuming a about twenty seven apartments ranging up to forty five apartments for day she testified that approximately all aspects of her job are actually all aspects of her job duties require use of her hands and she testified that she would work shows up for this deposition you're going to say we had no idea that he was going to deny causation when he denied it in the letter so you're talking about well we don't know all the things we're going to fine tune it a little bit here or maybe there was there was certain information he should have been since it's not a list from when you seem to be saying in the problem i see what you're saying is you've got a letter from the back there saying he's going to give the opinion that the nie is a causal connection so that i suppose every claimants he said there's no causal connection in the letters he said in his definition that this deposition so you can always pick apart the letter but to say i was completely surprised by the denial of causal connection that's a hard s counsel in my brief we discussed the the objection itself i know that that was primarily the questions coming from this court here today essentially that the job duties themselves were not not disclosed what that he actually review included got only the employer's job description but i believe also a job description would have been filled out by the petitioner that was the purpose of the second report that would minutely the report itself does not go into great detail dr cohen second report both letters were sent for this very reason i think counsel who is handling the case initially had a little bit of foresight and the maybe that your objections he raised dr rose deposition did not want that to be a problem when dr cohen was posed as such both the letters that were sent from his office tried as best as we could to thoroughly disclose and inform fisher's counsel what he would be testifying to specifically on the job duties if you also take a look at that the notice of deposition which is deposition exhibit number one for dr on the second page that also specifically addresses the job duties of your client will be addressed and dr cohen will be giving causation testimony in that regard as far as that all is clear that he was going to give an opinion it was going to go against the claim and then you should causation look at the thing as a whole i mean we hired dr cohen to get opinions on the relative causation that's what he did that's what the purpose of section twelve examiners are is there any prohibition against type of supplementing that was done here supplementing the  it could be supplemented will point where it would be much much different from the guy in the report was are there any concerns to my knowledge or are there are no case law constraints on the number of first of all in the bed of medical examinations you can do and i think you can certainly make an argument that i guess requesting or pertaining to dental reports could be of use i don't think you can make that argument in this case that once this case had developed the be repetitive trauma plain became more of an issue as then you need to have some sort of paramedic as to what constituted a surprise because surprise again is a subjective term there's any other questions you're there for your honor for the reasons