to include in the brief brief statement of facts outlining the facts accurately and fairly without argument or comment and with appropriate reference to the pages of the record for example you've got a statement in the statement the deference that should be or did the commission in order for this petitioner to prevail we understand that we're going to have to show you not really weighing evidence not doing anything of the circuit but trying to point out where the basis for the facts that they are using to point to the issue or not being credible and correct in this record that the commission here that this is not a case strangely of a doctor the issue is should she have the surgery both factors injury and dr goldberg say yes to surgery but the issue then becomes it's the million dollar question in this is not she had to have pain that some point doctors even honed in on this report a consensual as being bed and me having any significance only the commission does matter dr goldberg no doctors has these no pain complaints when she's talking to a chair and doesn't put down medical treatment until they don't think that has any or if you pick the bad also as a basis for cindrich the petitioner in venice trial didn't just sit back and say i'm just going to testify and let this one roll didn't bring in in a no discovery situation by subpoena people from her employer to try to show what she was trying to say that it wasn't just and this is before you knew what the commission would find try to say what she was feeling at the time and with the media you see after the accident in attempt to not do treatment all the time i mean this is a again the commission doesn't get to see a stoic woman on this commission sees the facts on medical records in i think they cherry pick unusual facts in this case to come friends who she brought in to try to explain her pain complaints no one on the responded side except to say that she didn't seek treatment had any opinion one way or another whether she wasn't in pain except for the human resources manager actually saying i trailered this kind of fall that i heard this somebody's going very loud rock that we heard and we saw her laying there you probably need treatment and just because this petitioner didn't run for treatment can't win sometimes run for treatment if you went too fast don't see quick shame on you and i don't think this is the commission want to cherry pick dr bradman's record and also the other worker that i think they also when they do make mistakes act there is very little here for the commission to hinge its head on with this decision you have to take and i think they should be given a good basis for a decision and i will rest on that  and yes that this commission decision be reversed in the arbitrator decision reinstate its credibility it's whether you believe the incidents was described by the treating medical record the first one at a doctor she chose to go to at a clinic that she was to write a two consensual but i've got a little under it to try to disprove it because if they mistreat and the first medical supports the petitioner i almost always lose these cases and the reason is there is an inherent trustworthiness in that there are medical say it's bad history is accurate it's network related well she has to disprove that bad history say then history is wrong we don't suppose that doctor reverted to witnesses to try to but they nor the protocols they didn't do what they were supposed to do they should have sent for medical treatment and should the center personnel you have to believe they didn't follow the protocol that doesn't make sense the incentives are there for them the follow on with this i almost a daily basis only for a few minutes never once complained or never once said i need medical care she had a treating physician that the co pay was twenty five dollars never read to a doctor she testifies twenty five bucks never evidence and that's what the commission believes the flow of the evidence is she didn't complain for two months she came in and asked for medical care and what did they do they said go to consentual right now the day she asked the day she went she gave the and i think in this case we have pointed out enough reasons to show an opposite conclusion is on its face there with dr eye doctor redlines history it's the only one that you can really point to everything else is consistent we don't have a petition or bouncing around from different histories in this case two doctors and i think that petitioner took to heart dr goldberg's comment and brought people in and