and we're here to discuss what those conflicts are the first there are three main issues before the court today the first is whether or not the manifest weight of the evidence supports the board's determination that  perfectly fine mental health it's also important to know that with regard to dr harris which is that seems to be the central question the score was concerned with when it remanded is that dr harris took into account more underlying facts than any other coin all of that the stresses came from the workplace yet the only expert to speak to someone in the workplace was dr pierce the pension board was who was impressed by the believed corning couldn't work for a police department he just couldn't work in modern the only distinction between he and his assessments bowling green that he had a personality in a cross liability case and the ferocity of different torm in criminal cases that there is a battle of experts and simply because one side has more of it more experts that agree with its position than other side does not render that case pointedly as marconi points out dr harris individually is enough marconi's new law says this court had the opportunity to review this case last time makes very clear in in general what happened with the condition in this case the pension or believes based upon doctor hears and many of the not final conclusions of other treated and examining physicians is a simply sorry quorn had a personality disorder he didn't want his coworkers that is not a psychiatric disability that is all that occurred in this case he believes in dr heiresses their own examination and review of the facts and important to know is that while much of the testimony was submitted as noted by the plaintiff in this case was submitted on paper it was a paper record because the reporters but it did get to see the live testimony of the african co pension board or his consideration and he and he a basis for denying benefits and in this case it has that but that wasn't what he was interested in  improved with treatment and likely would have resulted in him returning to work dr kelly said that it was reasonably expected to lead to full remission within three to six months he just would have went to therapy and would have taken the prescriptions that he had taken in the past finally with regards to the refusing to hold a hearing to further proceedings this board i discord i will obviously defer to you what you meant by that but traditionally as was stated people be out of it one on nine eleven thirty three twenty  fourth district nine hundred eighty two it says that the term for her c b s actually means go forward and don't back off in addition to that traditionally unless this court was our recent sit in on all the standards should apply on the questions of factors which as well as the issue related just left on to or depends in part on what this poor man in his opinion seven years ago in april of two thousand  on he said send it back to the board we've looked at all the arabs and the evidence of course reiners today is exactly the same as it was seven years ago and what this court said seven years ago is we've looked at the evidence and we don't see any reason pension board is entitled to any kind of deference on a fact finding issues of whether pointless disable or whether he took adequate remedies because we can understand quite frankly to the pension board how will you rule that factor there are lying around his personality disorder seems to me it's a rather substantial difference between the two did but i want to stress something else about this battle of the evidence i think the way it did happen required we disagree on that point as well as everything else we seem to disagree on judge and the back of the basis for our disagreement on this we submitted court no hasa killer separate feel is necessary this court pen and i like this court i would love it if somebody would ask counsel to explain where was the board for the three years after this court had this case seven years ago and they did not they didn't write a opportunity to get back pay for any benefits he made which we believe he's not and finally with regard to the time dovetails the rest of the process are back to the initial arguing which is he doesn't even deserve attention so it's harmless here even if they waited a while and the reason we talk about further proceedings listen this court knows what it meant when i wrote it whatever i say is not going to change that whatever mystery undersize is not going to change that so i don't believe that point much no longer what i really do is exactly and i spent a little time on my table here looking this up on page five thirty four of marconi in the following ok she insists if the record contains evidence to support the agency's decision that decision should experts with that being said because he did something different that's reason for them to believe that dr over the other doctors whether or not this court agrees with their analysis or disagrees with all due respect initiated much hay over the fact that because not here are still with people that reach different conclusions than those the interviews are meaningless that's like saying that a police officer we interview somebody who gives them helpful information during a murder investigation or something else but then we should believe the person is not a murderer that means that that investigation is meaningless and interview with their witnesses is not provable such is not rational conclusion the pension borne believe that the investigation stevie would be an expert witness of the police chief led to many conclusions and just because the police chief believes that officer exacting irrational or in fact he was acting irrationally