are found to be normal there are no standards he can we go back so there's no way to develop a case based on this alone claim of smith's birth he's won his case his thirty one year underground coal miner  did he have it within two years after his date of last exposure that takes in section one out and that's what i would be talking about this whole state of the argument is dated last exposure was january third two thousand and twelve therefore his c w he had to be present itself a year after the date of last both therefore on this record no x ray taken prior to the running of the day of one out which would be january second two thousand and fourteen can't prove or or even indicate  if the commission doesn't use the a m a guides they should tell you why and what else they're using it was a great day for claimants and for employers when the a m a guy had sixty if not put in it because before that normal so so the standardization if you guys put in is very important sometimes it hurts me sometimes it doesn't but when i'm putting a case together and i'm talking to the client i can tell them well you nice x rays are out and we get to dr meyer and he read two x rays one from october two thousand i'm one from march two thousand and twelve and two c t scans one from october zero nine and one from november two thousand well it's maybe not the best choice of words but i thought the verb was on the claimant well it is but in a not a light switch situation in i'm on or off i put up evidence that he has the way i don't prevail is he puts up evidence that the guy doesn't have it so maybe under those circumstances perhaps but not generally speaking no he doesn't have articulated in a in a better fashion yes he must prove me wrong because know articulate i guess if you come into evidence that it is considered then it's wrong and it's good for me because i have to prove within section on it no question i've got a group within section want to em the other used to determine whether it's an occupational disease as opposed to would not be patient because if we're ok causation is not what i was talking about at this moment disease this guy's a lifelong never smoke so we're going to have a hard time finding some of it but like i said section one half works both ways the claimant has to prove some kind of the same within the section one  is that dr meyer said that in fact it everybody says that when you have told us that you breathe in over your thirty years of coal mining a lot of space trapped there for the rest your life and dr meyer said as much as fifty percent of the way the lungs off the disease is permanent he stays there x rays change talk thank you take a picture you may take a picture two years later same thing is if they look exactly the same way you have a different film a different path taken in a different location and then just the fact paul interpreted a film that we don't know the date of because he didn't know that they'd but for purposes of this argument let's just say it was that so you have to interpretations of that film that are positive in total there were four positive interpretations of chest x rays three of them being the readings if you accept  there isn't a film after march twenty eighth one well mr was sore argues well this gentleman could have developed them on the osis after that the problem is there isn't any you have  that day so just as i can't point to a chest x ray taken in two thousand and fourteen being negative he can't point to one as being positive because the last film is march twenty eight twenty well i think that the clear preponderance of evidence in this is a manifestly issue or should i say that there was sufficient evidence in the record that there was no evidence  original film from ten years earlier specifically to look at them side by side to see if there was any change in that film over time and there wasn't and so i the film is a value because it was used for comparison purposes he's the only physician that did that and as i say i believe that there was sufficient evidence that the macone osa was was not present and it's presumed if you apply the god aids that there may be some suppose it's not use for disability purposes but even more importantly the guy say that a physician a strict quired to do not the commission on their own or the arbitrator mr with sore eyes you need to have a physician interpretation of the studies in applying the guy it's for that to have any value but all in the reasons are obvious why the guy say that it's not self that you the guide surry use for  that's simply a reference to the cohort that was used to determine what's normal or not normal what's within the range of the arm it's a certain group of people theoretically all healthy normal without lung itself but in that case they have a preference for enhance race so i don't want to get it confused here the guys aren't used to pick out necessarily a strategy for how you interpret they're used to charm an impairment based upon the numbers we had in regard to the issue of disable total lung capacity and that test he begged dr selfie and he again explained that has is a b city this gentleman and his opinion was the condition so he found abnormalities in the testing but he december twenty fifth and so this is before his date of last exposure but he rented an opinion that this gentleman stu psni on exertion was likely related to his obesity home unary hypertension and his sleep thank you thank you counsel  do i have to live under section one app and am by the same token it's a mirror image of the employer if he wants relevant x rays better have them when my guy couldn't develop see deputy pm on what you're suggesting statement as a matter of law that was brand new it had not happened before i have not brought you this one up argument before at some time it's going to be brand new i believe it will prevail hopefully that will be t but that is my argument that these timelines are there for both parties and it's arbitrary to not make them apply to the other side too particularly when you see that they do develop their cases in such a way that is preferable to get to do that is pretty smart mr word says the guy that does it he thought of it nobody has a call to it yet i hope they don't but the pendulum swings both ways and the same thing's true for the extra they got to watch my big point today is not that they prove disease i don't even care if they grew impairment what i want to see if they go to the credibility of dr selby you've got to have me guys what does he say i rely on