time the only good fifteen minutes all you know your honors i know i used to come up as a younger lawyer before this panel and argue that i had more evidence or better evidence in my quest to overcome this manifest weight of evidence to the interview that were the court has the scope of review and then i realized about five years into my practice that more evidence that really doesn't make a difference better evidence isn't really for the court to decide the better evidence is for the commission to decide as to what it had point to weight of the evidence that the commission had to decide relative to the issues that were before i had a hard time understanding what manifest weight was i think i understand what it is now my understanding of that school overview is that the mission has the authority and the obligation to make decisions on all of the issues that come before it and in the process of doing that they also have to make rulings and judge the credibility of the evidence doing conflicts and that evidence putting conflicts and medical testimony of medical records that go for it and the courts give great deference to the commission authority instructions make those kinds of single word that's contained within the report of dr buckingham the commission doesn't indicate in their decision that we also find that she's that the plaintiff petitioner that before the commission suffered no permanent injury defines what his opinion is he standing i think two things here number one he's stating that she had an accident according to the records on october twenty seventh one thousand nine hundred nine that accident didn't cause any permanent damage or it exacerbation over symptoms she has maximal symptoms with minimal findings except for the diabetes which she goes this accident but that she has remaining symptoms that are attributable to diabetes which isn't related to the accident i don't think he same that her diabetes is the cause of paragraph and i don't see it and i can see how we read that way but that's what his opinion was but i think what he's saying it again is two separate things she has diabetes that's unrelated and it's uncontrollable she has symptoms that are above and beyond her her objective findings and those are two separate conditions although i know that it goes on to discuss what kinds of and within the context of the report what kinds of symptoms may be related to the diabetes but i think in the end i don't think his opinion is as the plaintiff has finding a permanency but even if it is a plausible argument more to the point what is the other evidence that would support the finding a permanent seat aside from buckingham that you were talking about we were asking me to argue whether or not she record that this woman suffered any permanent damage because the awarded bumping him said there was none in the only reason they terminated this woman's right to benefits was reference by your honor that regarding whether or not all of her symptoms could be attributable to the incident so i think that by inference he's saying that some of her symptoms could be attributable to the incident have a warrant permit partial disability where you and and i want to come back i'm not trying to avoid the question that your answer asking me but i have seen many times where the commission is awarded from across the disability where the to for the commission to award t t d and to also award p p d rather than also too to cut off the other benefits t t d and medical i think it can be because there is other before they have records of treatment before it and they have and there is a there are i think there's inferentially there's there's questions of credibility that are raised by the arbitrators comments that he makes in the decision about whether or not this accident happened i think there was a question of credibility that was raised here so i think there's other evidence that goes in the play i think it's not a single source of evidence from which the commission generates a decision as to all of the issues i don't i don't think that they use dr buckingham's opinion exclusively for their determination as to whether or not those two to really get to the point here once they reach a state of maximum medical proof if that's you know you meant that you're asking me to maybe i stop making that argument because it doesn't work we don't deny permanent partial disability because someone gets better from their injury they get awarded for it that's the way it is i've seen for twenty years and i'd be happy my clients would be happy if the commission wouldn't award benefits if someone got better from their injuries because in theory that's this case i think it's similar to sue two thousand other cases that i've seen and i don't mean to be disrespectful but a thousand other cases where the employee has recovered from their injuries and they have still been awar some disability as a result of that injury in and of itself is it right is that the way that i don't you know theoretically as a young man i didn't think it was but i see a better argument that's why you don't see me here regularly because that argument doesn't work but those i think you know my arguments from from my previous and i we wouldn't certainly ask you to affirm the decision of the commission  doctor treating doctor says the condition was causally related there was a permanent injury fracture and muscle weakness  in this case actor buccaneer which the commission doctors his opinion now only says it's not because you're related he says there's no permanent injury and therefore that would make the decision internally system by wording