bronchitis sinusitis rhinitis and the reason for the appeal is that the commission lacked the basis or is fine dr rosenberg had no rational basis for his opinion and the reasoning is this first rosenberg did not have an exam he never met the petitioner he didn't take a physical exam he didn't take a patient history he relied solely on the medical records he was given by respondent and dr cohen freeport and his and why its engines are invalid in other words that they could not be relied on the commission due to either of the experts not being properly credentialed or that their opinions improperly face or is it someplace the weight of the commission afforded those and so i think the commission looked at it to a way where they wanted i disagree with it but i think they have the right to do that and as i look this coming ready to speak to you today i thought well i can't ask you to do that i'm going to ask you another time when i have a stronger case but get better the other three diseases are affected by my  now and remember and here's the key to the thing rosenberg all the have his medical records rosenberg entire review of these medical records filed down to only six entries that he put his report concerning petitions breathing one city one having chest pain or sharpness of breath one referred to a chest x ray that showed clear lines some coughing and three prescriptions for coughing and four others noted clear lumps on physically exam now for some reason he also reported col his foundation is so flawed that undermines you and what are you saying that's right i'm saying that that that the these records contain all of the things i just said and when rosenberg gave his report for where i get the exam my guy sees of me touches in the ass all the questions when you do need to ask and respondent goes to cleveland gets a record for a few and an issue comes up on chronic bronchitis which is only a matter of patient history  saw it he never asked him anything my guy did all of that one of the best on aldous there are and so the question comes out how can that be how can that match up and that is this a little bit of what i want to go about right now the entries in the because there is no objective testing for that in those cases it comes down just one thing if subjective opinion of the doctors who saw the patient it's all there is there isn't any basis for a disagreement with petitioner he could say well i took the history and i took his he has a history of coughing or whatnot he didn't have that now so the question gets to this point with all that on the table is this enough to declare the decision of the commission to be against the manifest weight of the evidence and i think the answer is yes and the reason the reason on and the reason is that on these decisions there is no rational basis for dr rosenberg disagreement with colon to mccollum the commission has a duty to look at the record to see if they don't match up approach to burke summary and also to see if the most pertinent exhibits entries were missing from respondents exhibit a document parlance records and when it does there's only one conclusion if the commission's decision based soley on the record do that expert has to have had all the records and considered all the records and discussed all the records why there's no special findings i'd be happy dance with otherwise i'll move on the the only the only thing i would point out that is there wasn't any prejudice in regard to not answering questions i'm going to be very brief there's not a lot to talk about here my expert dr rosenberg reviewed all the medical records in this case and it's true he didn't examine the gentleman but he relied upon not only those treatment records but also the records of the retained expert  is i don't know if i did it in this case but i usually always do one is deaf and asking whether the history he took was plea whether he recorded it completely in his room or was accurate it  and assuming dr cohen is very good at picking your history and doing all that my doctor saw so yes my doctor who met with him and asked him all the same things but he relied upon what was told to expert as well as his physical finding his setter from an exam and all the medical records and dr rosenberg was the only one that actually reviewed medical records now dr rosenberg no expert is going to end and i don't want to because we don't want to but no expert is going to go through and list every thing in the medical records my all my word that report would be just huge depending on the amount of medical it's reviewed so it's not unusual for an expert not this say something about everything in the medical records but he did have everything to review and most importantly what he reviewed was the treatment records of document foreign and in  he doesn't have it there's a technical definition for chronic bronchitis and i cannot remember if we have it in this case but basically in its adopted i think by internist and on the knowledge of sin it's basically you have to have coffee on an every day basis for two months out of the year for two consecutive years or something along that line so there is a definition that has to be met that dr mcfarlane is seeing this gentleman throughout takes a history from him each time of the problems he has and all we have is that history and medical records treatment records are inherently reliable because we certainly individuals don't be trustworthy when when he's relating that  that's years after he left the mob and most importantly i asked him if arlene are you mable to say that this gentleman suffered a permanent functional impairment and he said he could not say that's  he says no experts going to go through every entry well if you did an exam i could believe that that's why section twelve exam is there that's why you get to take one but if you have chosen to not have an exam and only have a record of  document far oh look his records he's a regular treating doctor here country town appeals borough he's got how many people simply waiting outside cough and kicking around whatever their problem is and he needs to get people in and he needs to get  out and in a town like that with a lot of coal miners coal miners expect that real problems and a lot of the don't come in far i'm getting older and read in the coal i smoke getting fat whatever they don't come in for what he didn't come in here enough for me to meet those requirements that he had it more than most days of the week three months of the year two years in a row he didn't have it but he also said but he didn't come in here every time  so when you have the author of those records and then you have a hired guy who's who's basing an opinion based solely on those records it gets kind of weak in my opinion  the line it gets too thick that's where you have a hyper secretion of you because it is a real disease you could have lung cancer and not be able to measure you can have prostate cancer and i feel a major to certain times and you can have sinusitis that you may not major effectively sometimes but it doesn't mean it's not real it doesn't mean that if you don't if you get up and infection in there and get a brain abscess it doesn't mean it can't even kill you in certain circumstances it's not good it's give five percent ten percent fifteen percent of ours but if he's got the disease and it's not even been tested by the respondent he should get something not a denial and the terrible thing about denial in these cases is that not only means he doesn't get something for this earlier on it's a harsh remedy and will respond in waves the argument and award should be given