and what's the nature extending tax and the reason for the argument is or the reason for the appeal is the testimony about the job offer the job there was a job offer and that's really my first everybody agrees that there is a job offer that contention is whether it was temporary or permanent by petitioners own testimony and respondents there was a job that was offered to share says it was two to three months at the very least the t t d period should be it is it that doesn't tell him it was credibility doesn't i'm sorry does that help him his credibility not it doesn't help with or it's credibility that there is no job offer that was done after the job offer that the other plant was refused they've changed the scope of the job and it's only after the new position is offered that planned and that's my point that the issue about the performance reviews and mr head and credibility were never disputed the former is reviews speak for themselves mr penton never said anything about him not performing but somehow the performance reviews when he gets mr there's nothing mr hinton testified to about his performance this was an issue that was part of the petitioner and i think once that narrative changed they still went ahead with it and somehow convinced the commission but the performance reviews and against testimony are in no way contradictory specifically why are they not support of that had nothing to do with performance and the timing wasn't what the argument with the arbitrator commission from indicated it didn't happen at the same time it happened over periods of weeks it was it was two separate meetings the separation agreement was after both of those meetings so the timing wasn't the same time this despite what the commission said the offer in writing wasn't a credibility issue and employment were your view on the performance wasn't there the issue so that the rationale to question him this testimony is not he shouldn't be allowed to profit from the gamble parties a minute job was offered so i think at the very least it's it's well wheat that is him i think they got that wrong for those reasons i gave because the credibility that you put the credibility question by the commission doesn't make any sense and that's ordered by the record now we're buying a t then again that's where the manifest weight argument comes in and i think that the question now the commission was wrong i would point out that mr corbett's credibility wasn't counted on one to the record but i know we're talking about the manifest weight and i when you take a close look at the plane commissioners rationale for that it just it just doesn't stand up it and we would i'd ask the court at the very least to review the t v period and take a close look at the rationale for the commissioner's findings because of what i thought line before and musters any so so that you know that that was one of the questions i asked i think counsel i don't know how you answer but there was anyway when mr hinton testified his  credibility was not good for her right of reasons first of all the he testified that they couldn't he didn't even know if the decision to terminate mr corbett was made before or after this work related accident so you know there was a lot of unclear innes with regards to that issue he did testify that titian was terminated due to performance issues testimony was highly inconsistent next he testified that the off the petition of permanent employment within his restrictions that the testimony was of these two met on july thirty first and at that point dr fletcher had mr gorbachev work he didn't even have any work traditions and so i'm not sure how he could have walked with him work within any restrictions because there were no restrictions that dr fletcher ultimately put him on light this type of job you haven't told me what i'm going to be doing you told me it's going to be in the end bill you haven't told me what my hours are you haven't told me what my rate of pay is i need some specificity i can't just accept a job and the circumstances are good and you know all in this case by guardian west the lies their argument and it shows a lack of credibility on their part they didn't have any trouble reducing the separation agreement into writing why couldn't they have put something in writing with regards to this supposed offer if it was really made and common sense he would have terminated his employment that would have been the end of it instead of what mr corbett said was that he asked them to put it in writing they met again about two weeks later and when he showed up mr hinton present him with the separation agreement of written job opera lacked credibility because misrepresented the ten problems or issues before the accident to testify that he had been to the doctor for colds and flus perch well i think it reasonable to think in the context of being question here and what was going on that mr corbett was thinking in terms of his condition at the time of the trials of those with his condition before the accident and so what we see is in in evidence in this case there was eleven years of medical records prior to the date of accident during those eleven years on five occasions mr corbett had gone in and presented with some kind of some kind of symptoms that could arguably be called breathing problems in april of zero one he presented with some left ear pressure in may of zero one eave presented was diagnosed with as magic bronchitis then there's no treatment for over seven years in december of two thousand and eight he went in and to see his family doctor and it says diagnosis c o p d and bronchitis again no treatment for over two years in january of two thousand and eleven he went in for sinusitis and then again november of two thousand and eleven hold  chest congestion at no time that eleven years was he ever seen by a whole monologist at no time in the eleven years was he ever given any kind of a pulmonary function test or a spy rama tree or anything to show any breathing deficit also remember dr fletcher was guardian west dr eaves the company doctor at the time all this happened and he testified on behalf of mr orpen said that he had worked with mr corbett regularly for ten years and had never noticed him exhibit ing any kind of breathing issues whatsoever while on the job and so so it seems probable that there were no significant preexisting conditions now look at his condition after that after the date of the accident corbett by the time of the trial had been seen by a doctor fletcher i believe in excess of twenty times by that time he had been seen by three different pulmonary specialist and he had had approximately twenty pulmonary function terrorists after the chemical accident and the results of those spy roundtree turfed was an average of fifty three percent of what would be considered normal regular breathing though he had suffered significant significant problems after this chemical part time and that was a part time job he took that so we could start getting some income and eventually the full time position i did also want to address counsel's argument with regards to the t v being made and he declined before the separation agreement and in here's the testimony page sixty a transcript after you declined the offer you were presented with the this rel diagnosed with any kind of breathing or long problems no sir no have you ever had any treatment for breathing or long problems no record shows yes a diagnosis of c chest x rays he was taking two different kinds of inhalers he at one point even had a pulmonary examination that was in two thousand and one but still there was quite a bit of diagnosis and treatment  long condition he was told to put smoking it was a long time smoker so it makes sense that he would have these types of problems with regard to