order entered by the circuit judge confirms this when you get over that hurdle we believe and that blatantly misstates what was said at the circuit court as an aside to a question regarding manifest weight of evidence i responded years i've been representing firefighters and police officers before pension wars this is the only case i've ever seen reporters situation once even mention the doctor's opinion so those were never even brought up so i don't believe i have immediate answer to what just the order of the board stated that it was just as likely that his back problems are simply degenerative in nature and not resulting from an active duty or the cumulative effects of duty and the base of that upon for reasons and i'd like to briefly state that those for reasons have nothing to do with the evidence in the record guards medical records or the reports from the doctors they were part of the record they were the record the board didn't address them in their decision or say anything about the doctors that it's not their be the board after hearing all of the evidence submitted a decision party that happens and i've never seen a decision by a board that did not set forth any of the reasons or facts set forth by the three doctors that were it's a self contained breathing apparatus it's a heavy piece of equipment that at times if they go into a fire they have to earn it would wear on their back i'm not sure i know bloomington there's an article some paper that they've because of all the worker's comp claims they switched to a lighter pack the records show it's the until approximately four weeks after the accident i am unaware of any law in the pension area of the states or any time limit or regarding reporting an accident i know of the worker's compensation arena it's forty five days obviously he reported it within a month which is well within that also i don't believe the city disputed notice in the after the circuit court's decision we settled the worker's compensation claim for one hundred seventy five thousand very sacks so the city never couple of weeks but it was determined that that doctor couldn't see him for four weeks out so he went ahead and set up another appointment with another doctor to get him quickly so yes it was at the late i did not believe that although that should have any evidence or any impact on how long t treatment there was no evidence in the record whatsoever that any intervening trauma by the time hurt himself by the time went to the doctor and then the final reason the board gave was that mr feit continued to work as a firefight all fighter until such time  caused him to have surgery i believe that is totally relevant i mean is he to be punished because he's a diligent worker there's absolutely no evidence of an intervening injury or any trauma in the first injured himself which is not disputed until the time h the decision or the finding that was entered by the pension court here there is plenty of support in the record that supports the finding that mr pike actually suffered from a non duty i don't i don't know i don't think it is  well i i think that what all you have to find is that there was some competent evidence in the record and as long as you deem that's what he calls until of evidence is competent then that's enough and you can  these kinds of cases having the testimony and all that that you know the actual physical people testifying before them so so i think the standard of review which is set by statute but i was just saying that even a small amount of evidence would be enough as long as it's competent i think here there's plenty of evidence first of all mr pike did night immediately accident report now he incident report that doesn't hit me medical evidence and this is all circumstantial evidence that accompanies many a back injury right and the pension board surely did consider the medical evidence the medical evidence there are plenty of medical evidence on the record and there is no indication that it wasn't cancer of course that medical evidence was considered but it just wasn't what was mentioned in the order  and there is nothing in the law that requires this specific pinpoint needs medical evidence because that as is the case i think in a lot of times in these types of cases the medical evidence goes what go goes both ways there stocked are set say this and there's doctors that say that so that was the case here and it could have been that the pension board just did not think that there was really a and a lot of that was from i think mr price testimony before the board he didn't seek medical attention right away he did return to work the very next day there was no indication that he was physically frail  evidence in the records to support that there wasn't even an activation no he answered he did have surgery yes but that doesn't mean that the work as a firefighter aggravated it he had this condition of act pain and he had said before he joined on as a firefighter lymington do you know living at the herniation do we know that yes stated they answer those questions so it's a court would like to know examine those doctors answer questions regarding previous back pain and they felt that this accident exacerbated condition responsibly so all all of that lead to three doctors dr fletcher just talked about