position that judge having this incorrectly applied the manifest weight standard of review and when applied correctly that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the commission's decision we all agree that the issues fact it's the issue of causation and the issue of accident and also the issue of credibility we disagree on the test for the manifest way and the deference that should be given to the commission's decision on credibility of the witnesses resolve the conflicting testimony draw inferences from the testimony and the evidence whether there is support and then the test is whether there's sufficient evidence in the record to support the commission's nation on this case has a bandoned the current standard or view the deference to the commission's decision on issues of credibility in favor of a standard of review that would allow the record the reviewing court to play substantial weight on the arbitrator find sought and that's virtually every case that is mentioned in the sense then has basically stated that that's a misstatement of the law that that the commission is the finder of fact and the they have original jurisdiction not a correct and look on whether there sufficient evidence in the record for the commission's decision i believe that the commission's decision should stand a lot of this issue on accident involves the credibility and to another employee talked about an anger several other around several other members of the law and that she could and had difficulty working the rest of her shift that she had extreme difficulty working the next day that it was then her day off on that that thursday and friday she woke up with the numbness in her face and she called in mr simoni had testified that he did have contact with her aren't all of those traits that she did not present with any pain or have any apparent issues did not report to work injury and it was based on that that the commission found that mr simone ears testimony was more credible on that issue which i can do yes exactly yes and that is within there i am their duty is to weigh the evidence and determine do they believe is more credible we have the same issue with the cause ation regarding d he had all of the records to review he made a study of those records he interviewed the petitioner he conducted a physical examination and he opined that her condition of ill being was not promptly related never in my life seen a circuit court judge write a thirteen page so the question would become in my mind a key to the case to me is that there was something wrong with the commission's decision importantly regarding the wrong standard i understand what the law has said about those cases but i still think that the judge was also citing those for the that's no longer i understand that and what i've heard him respectfully saying it was even though that might not be the law that is also not be a strong hold standard that's not the standard the standard the manifest weight of the evidence that just goes to one aspect of manifest weight of the evidence i don't think he's disputing that manifest weight of the evidence is the standard he's just talking about that extra special scrutiny i'm saying ok point out what the commissioner but the arbitrator said excuse me what the circuit judge said and what i believe to be the case is that somebody somewhere decided this case was going to be denied didn't they cherry pick evidence from the file that without consideration to other evidence and then try to use that evidence to support the denial of claim and i'm going to can tell you that i would find it unbelievable that this court would automatically put the side that every time the commission says this witness is more credible then ok well no you're right i can see if we if the court that the lady worked alone until two o'clock it's undisputed that she did the inquiry it's undisputed that the distributor showed up on tuesdays at two o'clock this lady described not only hey i went in and looked at the  credibility when you also combine that with the fact that serum the principal care physician the c p a report and dr gordon it all have a good history of the accident now sharon if you look at the commission's decision why did they decide should monye was more credible he testified he was there if you read the commission's decision closely what you will find is that the commission did look at this on the issue of accident everything that they did the science to moan it was credible about had nothing to do with the accident method therefore her testimony is not true and it showed how many times she spoke with him how long those conversations were there there it's one thing to say that somebody is credible and it's another thing to look at the entire evidence and decide what overall is more credible and what the manifest weight of the evidence is and what the commission did was they just said simone is more credible but said and he didn't have any bias by the time he testified he was the exalted root of this lot and the commission says he has no eyes it's not going to affect their insurance rates it's not we don't have to hear now turn that to the issue of causation and what the commission paints is a picture that the slaves look to get wide due to neck and back pain that's not the case at all she had one from october of thirteen through june third of fourteen without missing any work because of the neck problems she told dr cornet about her neck problems she and that she'd had before nobody it's just that surgery in fact she testified she worked every day up until about a month up to a month and a half and they started giving her one day a week of all this isn't the lady that is the mission we pray was plagued with devastating neck pain and so relic the briefs of counsel postal counsel preference all kinds of things about she went to the doctor for this she went to the doctor for that but one of them in particular they look at october twenty eighth two thousand and ten and they say she was there for neck pain the examination shows everything was fine same thing with the november tenth two thousand and ten reference made in counties three everything was fine the fact point being with all this is it would be easy for the commission as it was in this case here to say ok this person's for probable this person is more credible and list the july twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen m r i but he does reference it and his reading of it in the report under the m r i of the cervical spine which is june one thousand two thousand and fourteen he notes his comparison he states there he does the reading of the two thousand and fourteen then he states that there is a mild degree of central canal narrowing at both levels that appears to be unchanged comparing the images to those at the july twenty sixth two thousand and thirteen on the seat or port imaging i so he does document his comparison i would prefer him to have listed that specifically for the death then from that it is apparent prime judge having this decision you didn't agree with the commission that's obvious but i know that you asked counterpoint to give a citation supporting that the the reviewing court could hold the arbitrator's decision on credibility or that that that was their function to determine credibility and that their supreme court cases i know one is i'm pregnant now from cbre that says the function of the commission is to try to credibility of the witnesses and to draw reasonable inferences from their testimony so it is the commission's function to do that the test then is whether their decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence i want to talk about the screen shots ok if you look at the record you will see when earlier in the testimony petition with looking at her cell phone looking at notes an item she had on her cell phone i injected it that i said well your honor she can reply to refresh your recollection but she shouldn't just book by from the and the arbitrator found he was going to allow her to testify from those no i did not object again our creator made it clear you point the out that when mr patrick approached her with these larger printouts of screenshots from her phone concerning the telephone call he specifically stated i'm not introducing these into evidence i'm not seeking to introduce these into evidence she testified from those just as she had her notes but both the circuit court and arbitrator rely on those screenshots themselves not the testimony of the petitioner but on the screen shots themselves to bolster her credibility and to attack or impeach the credibility of  improper those are not in the evidence if you look through the records you will see that those are not in evidence they are not part of the evidence presented i have no opportunity to object to foundation because they were not offered and so that is that is the issue i think that the court incorrectly relied upon that issue and you're right i know mr and her patrick made a statement about the way that i would state you would think that she it's a miracle she's  alive with how i created her and her past history but if you look at the records here this woman has been appearing since two thousand and ten complaining a subsidiary extreme terrible pain in her neck down her bilateral and her strain mitty's her lower extremities i'm her neck blocking just numbness and her tongue in her face i mean all of these complaints with basically benign finding i with nothing to support those complaints when she presented to dr fleming in october i'm sorry in august of two thousand and thirteen she again was reporting some very year pain she wanted to be seen about the next severe longstanding pain again relatively no findings with nothing that would support her extreme complaint so this is something that has occurred for a long time and if you look at every one of wait and there is sufficient evidence to support it and i would ask that the the commission