nature unless the employer can show an adequate justification for the delay it good in just cause for delay is defined in terms of reasonable was it reasonable for the employer to believe that the delay in payment was justified i would submit the facts in this case support the employer's reasonable bait assisted justify the way in payment now the employer disputed payment from nov thirtieth of two thousand and nine to march fourth the two thousand attack mediately prior to this recommended by both dr outland often dr live and in his continuing to work full duty is tolerated up to this point as the claimant refer returns to dr event on september fourteenth of two thousand and nine at the completion of the physical therapy and again there's the discussion regarding surgery because the physical therapy has worked as an excuse for pain so big to dr levin recommends both the c t scan and m r i c t scan is done four days later the response of hate them play paid for  understand it work releases were two hundred prior to that correct both of them had said she could continue working full duty and she was in fact working full duty and so when she saw a doctor saying on november thirtieth two thousand i said to the doctor yes i'm no longer working well the reason she was no physicians had said that she could work full duty previous to that in those two other positions i mean dr singh disagreed with dr levin as it related to than at the c of a disco gram as well as that returned to release trying to work as the doctor i disagree relative to the work status but the very different doctors providing different opinions as are pillaging and the question was was it reasonable for us to rely on that and are delaying and pain the benefit specially made as fact that she was working without did take off work but there were two puting medical opinion saying that she could work full duty so the question becomes was it reasonable for the responded to rely on those two other opinions in disputing that time period of benefits and i would submit to you that it was reasonable for thirtieth of two thousand and nine he's now disagreeing with dr levin we have a total difference as to which type of surgery should be undertaken we have a doctor saying different things at trial the claimant testified that yes he wanted the treatment offered to her by dr levin and then she also testified yes she wanted the treatment offered to her doctor saying are two totally different types of surgeries are being recommended the claimant then goes back to see doctors saying on the february seventeenth of two thousand and ten it which point she says the doctor saying i come back my treating physician two days later the respondent authorizes the treatment in writing saying we will authorize the treatment as prescribed by a doctor saying our decision has been made as to the type of surgery you're undertaking they immediately acting reasonable was a reasonable for them to act in the manner that they work was it a and unreasonable to lay in the benefits and i would say no the facts actually indicate that they were acting very recently and were acting very quickly as to getting these standard felt the benefits way and abuse of discretion but it is it is the report employer studi to show what what was that just leave mission found it was not reasonable they said it was not reasonable but they came to specific reasons as to why did said that the delay in payment was not reasonable there are two reasons was there was a delay and the authorization of the surgery there was no delay and also that conflicted with hollywood can see no and second the second reason they gave and saying that we did not authorization from which there was no delay and second that there was a byelection of section five of the act now section twelve the back is clear and it says that within forty eight hours you have to turn over the doctors whether it be treating examining reports prior to the date of hearing and this court recently is that was to pick them all again that the date of hearing is the first date of arbitration that there's no question that the employer provided all the reports in compliance with section twelve of attorney subpoenaed dr lantos records i think it was in january eighth of two thousand and ten and dr land off provided an incomplete copy of the reports by january twenty seventh of two thousand and ten and d singh's records report was provided to the claimant by january twenty first of two thousand and ten the proc the trial of this matter didn't proceed until march of two thousand and eleven if there was no violation of section twelve of vacuuming in reading the can the commission's decision which is adopted the other trees decision it seemed that they they felt that the respondent or the lawyer was in some way trying to hide all of the the date of a surgery there was some secondary benefits that happened relative to april of two thousand and ten and then from november of two thousand and ten through march of two thousand and eleven there was another point  second time benefits because that there was a difference in opinion as to any need for a second surgery dr singh did the first surgery we immediately started paying benefits as of march fifth of two thousand and ten she continued to treat with doctor saying she continued to have some problems dr singh recommended a second revision surgery based upon a c t scan that he performed for the commission didn't work ten thousand dollars in penalties under section one thousand dollars correct relative to the first period of time and they were very decision that it was very specific that they were only awarding it for this period of time i believe that it's in conflict with the plain meaning statue relative to how the commission then worded their decision i mean i understand that there is for the award t t t versus medical versus p p v i mean there's no question i don't think i could argue for this but with a straight face that there's that this hasn't been the stated relative to make penalties because of the language of the amount payable i'm saying that i'm reading the commission's decision relative to the one thousand now and that very specific thing in a different way well to the statutory language for the late fee because it is a mandatory hamilton and it's a different kind of thing it's just it's not as egregious as that and there's been a written demand that that that unreasonable so it's clearly inadvertent but is there a real you know it's an inadvertent of a payment then i can give battle for ten thousand dollars penalty for a one day mets and i guess what i'm saying is that's not the way i read that statute especially in conjunction with the way the commission wrote their decision because that that's what this when if you interpret it that way that's what the statute says you can miss one day and if it takes that don't pay and then you have to start paying for the fourteen days and when you know when does that calculation begin because there is some there could be some divergence about that so then would that be you know a delay in payment absolutely could be just be a and that's i mean what i was trying to type but here is relative to these facts that we continued to actually make payments at all times this was an eight a case where the responded just threw up their hands and didn't pay i mean every time after the november sushi went off work with dr sing we paid the benefits we paid him all the way through and then that second period of time which is what we're talking about relative to november of two thousand and ten through march of two thousand and eleven there were conflicting medical opinions again there was dr singh who said yes she needs more treatment yes she is off of work yes i think she has to do arthritis and there was back to colombo who looked at surveillance video tape that was taken on september first and september second showing the wanted the penalties they did finally for that but they said it was under reasonable for escapade not the pain during that period of time where there is a fact two different doctors having two different opinions i mean i think it one product is pretty clear that these were reasonable doc we disagreed and we didn't stop pain as soon as we got the surveillance video we did we continued to pay and we went and attained a section problem valuating physician to look at the videotape value waiter and it was only at that juncture the commission and the arbitrator found cause the need for a fusion t t v and the second fusion she had an aggravation for which we filed on may eleventh two thousand and nine and the commission found that that wasn't the culprit without the surge she would require a can't stand in an m r i to better evaluate the neighboring disks he found that she had pain and the need for treatment was directly related with the work injury indicated that she could work as our stated and i go back to vince assessment is right on target we just about with just about everything he said i can't blame him for recommending surgical intervention at this point because she has failed physical therapy twice actually and often goes on to recommend however a different course of therapy he doesn't discuss anything with the injured worker essentially this stuff to the adjuster in the nurs five s one fusion but not a disco graham now did she end up going back to dr london with that note no the nurse case manager trial was twenty two year old little never had the opportunity of interviewing dr nuland off second report and determining whether that was necessary or not but we know that those two doctors said she needs a fusion and physician uses not present there was no one present and it says as soon as practicable it doesn't say send it to the doctor it doesn't say send it to to an attorney it says that physician is to send as soon as practicable and quite honestly justice is i disagree with this interpretation that the forty eight hour rule is a default rule that all you have to do is present this documentation forty eight hours before trial ceased to exist until she came to my office i filed an application for just one of twenty million in january subpoenaed these doctors who i had a welfare loser with who then i read reports that sa this person needs to be off work this person needs a fusion and they did nothing they advanced ten weeks of the p p d rate and february fifth we received those ten weeks but at the lower rate they didn't send another check until march thirty first two thousand and ten that paid march two thousand and ten to march eighteenth they then issued a second check march thirty first two thousand and ten but cut her off of teaching because she was under restrictions with doctors saying even though she had not been  mentioned in the commission decision but please note that's three hundred forty three days but they didn't pay for it and when we do the math we know that it's ninety one seventy three weeks of benefits that were not paid so he reviews it the surveillance tape of propylene weeds in the yard in preparation for her sister's wedding now fortunately for the petitioner just days before that she had a functional capacity of valuation march the fifth scene was the only one that given an opinion he was their expert he took her off work on november the thirty cs opinion was the only opinion they had legitimately from this period of time that's ninety six days and they delayed the pavement for over four hundred days thereafter the question becomes where you entitled to the ten thousand dollars for the nineteen and all he had was their vexatious refusal to pay t t d benefits for that period of time when the only opinion was she couldn't work on reasonable or did they feel prove it was reasonable doubt is benefits except for four weeks i think that's exactly what they did they didn't air on that side i mean i i perceive you saying that and i understand but i i think that there was a legitimate dispute between doctors as to whether or not she could