william see murphy's ninety six first day i think of somebody you know he passed away about two weeks ago and i went to his wake and the guy's name five years old he's dead and it was great catalyst b only can win this case hands it off to be i say great before let's try the case i didn't realize i was the one and only defendant to be there in front of the jurors the other twenty six itself because bill knew and this is where we make the court dietrich the presumption falls and he has no value any longer and the claimant is still the burden part i agree with most of what you're saying except in the situation where it's a multifactorial caught just like in my specified scase there were twenty seven causes for mr a live case aspects to assist here there are multiple causes that we all agree he is obese he's a smoker he's got a family history he's in jail and here twenty two years as a firefighter the presumption is that any condition or impairment of he evidence that the employment did not constitute any part did not play any part in the creation of that condition and if so that if a expert came forward or the employer and said opinion we deserved to lose but you're saying he didn't say that because he said he was most likely to sing was a most likely cause was not sufficient there's no question it's caused by his history you daughter excluded the occupational hazards and exposures of twenty two years of firefighting by pointing out that there is no other risk factors out there when really why do you why do you suggest that there's any presumption in other words there's not a there's not a specific amount of evidence that has to be shown to completely rebuttable presumption it just has to be incompatible or opposite the presume facts here presume facts was that on february fifth two thousand and fourteen he was performing firefighter duties we were but that presumption by bringing him off were firefighters bringing in johnston himself and d  i think it says some wall well i think it is based on the franciscan sisters and in dietrich the illinois supreme court case but i don't know of any precedent  that tells us it's got to have this heightened a mountain of evidence in order to buy i think it's unreasonable to think that it's a conclusive presumption like there is no such thing as a conclusive presumption it doesn't  is if evidence is introduced which is contrary to the presumption so the question becomes is fifth was testimony contrary to the presumption if the answer to that is yes the that it's a risk factor for her in the zs has other risk factors such as smoking diabetes hypertension high cholesterol said terry lifestyle and those far enough in make a rebuttal presumption that your hypertension wasn't caused by job in fact it may be caused by weight gain and lack of exercise response is right and so what would it for on the small use you would you could bring your action which you would probably have brought in but you could bring your action and then the information would come in regarding your health problems regarding your current condition and regarding the fact that those that are being  way to exclude the employment as a cause simply that there is some other contributing oh yes angry i agree with that  and i think that's certainly true one some kinds of cancers i think there's a presumption about cancer being causally related i think you would agree that all cancers cannot be causally related if your exposure is a firefighter so there's there can be a medicine in the state of the medicine rebuttal who are there to be a specific rebuttal of a firefighter was only one apartment for five years which is the bare minimum necessary for his perception to apply and i could see some doctor saying no as a matter of