doctors are uncontested and all say the same thing they all say that james foot problems were aggravated and made symptomatic by his work activities of repetitive walking standing bending kneeling that on direct examination on cross examination he agreed that the work activities that speak would be enough to aggravate the condition and nick symptomatic the condition that no one is saying that the condition was caused by his activities if you go we are arguing is that the condition repetitive standing a repetitive walking on students an act under the work that they did not use the neutral risk analysis they concluded as a matter of law that it didn't matter how unique the walking was how repetitive how the quantity or quality of the walking was they said we do not believe that walking and standing in and of itself is enough to be a worker's compensation case and right now one hundred percent right you have is i guess i wouldn't be saying well as we look at this and when i'm looking at the neutral activity associated with this if the commission in my world as i look at their opinion never examined not ok now in this case what we're looking at then is if walking and standing in and of itself it hitting the quantitative and qualitative analysis now we go to the next step step which is  the manifest weight of the evidence prove or does the petitioner meet the burden of proof of proving that now the commission concluded concluded that james did not sustain his burden of proving his activities that were actually cause who incidence of symptoms while working alone does not a stamp pushed the work activities legally cause the condition little listen to the symptoms we're saying as you look through the medical no doctor is saying it's just a coincidence of symptoms clear completely have direct uncrossed it was not related but if the doctor says not related in the beginning and on cross examination he concedes the small element which is the wor aggravate could not hear a great will but in this situation if the commission is saying it's a coincidence of symptoms but we have doctors that are saying could be doctored that didn't say schmidt does speak case the commission went through the record they spent ten pages going through the facts there's fifty four paragraphs of facts that they reviewed here he indicated as your and he said it i'm not saying that the condition was caused by work he said potentially there was an aggravation from work my doctor dr schmidt testified that in his opinion the man condition had deteriorated so far he had underlying disease the achilles tendon also is and he said that disease had deteriorated so far that the simple act of getting up from my one you know what that was a question for the commission to answer whether they believed that there was such significant cross examination that has additional opinion was destroyed and the commission said they didn't believe that so i commission's decision which clearly was supported by the facts you have to show that only a contrary opinion would be permissible under this state of facts and the courts have said on numerous strictly why i don't agree with the commission that's all it sat there are differing opinions from each of the doctors and the commission chose a decision or an interpretation wherein they found that he did that present facts that were given to schmidt to walt and to the initial doctor who saw him in the emergency room by the fish there was that he walked ten miles that day and in fact that's not true they base their opinions on that and as as was pointed out the opinions are subject to question because they were relying upon faulty facts as it turned out when the man testified he testified that well he might  said that's the worst case scenario that's less than a third of what these doctors were told when they were asked could there have been an aggravation so the commission and it pointed out in its decision said we clearly replied that testimony and because it was repeated and because that's what these are doctors relied upon their opinions icons of connection are suspect at best thout the other thing that was testif general public was so given this information there was more than not factual information or the commission to find a way that they did they found that he didn't sustain his burden of proof they deny the claim based on period to show accident they denied it based on failure to show positive connection we would ask that you affirm the commission's decision thank you  further find that the commission's denial of these claims is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence i think i'll leave it at that own thank you i'll be brief i believe is helpful has indicated he agrees dr mall did say that this condition was aggravated by his work activities and even the commission in their decision says the governor was correct but dr schmidt testified that the activities at work exacerbated his preexisting condition and dr kraus acknowledged that the activities likely increased to symptomology so the problem i've got with this on a manifest weight is if they're saying there's a doctor who says this is not related to his work activities no one is identified in the commission's decision all three doctors have said that either side aggravated or and i agree with that statement it did not change the the the pathology what we're talking about is the symptomology which is what dr kraus said acknowledged that the activities increase the symptomology that's what the medical treatment is intended to treat you can't fix the underlying condition the injections the course of treatment was meant to treat the symptomology it was caused by him working ten hours a day walking on concrete walking on metal steps using these defective boots the onset of symptom at work no one's talking about this onset of symptomology at home or anywhere else and so that's where i believe that this this is the manifest weight of this as i'm reading these medical conclusions the manifest weight is going the other way that all the doctors are saying at minimum i will reach you didn't change pathology at minimum the symptoms began to work the work activities would be enough to make this symptomatic so that's right saying it needs to be reverse