to represent them here that officer rivera was fired on january two thousand and six he passed all the necessary physical requirements of the department disclosed to the department his prior knee injuries and was able to work in new injury is result of this call home continue to call you told a fellow coworker about the pain that he continued to shift that day so i'll treat him with a history physician as soon as he possibly can get in with him which was two days later tear and subsequent to that was unable to return to work in the medical there's approximately six medical reports in this record all physicians are clear in its own disputed that he sustained a disabling injury  molder absolutely misconstrued the evidence in this case his opinion this was the worker's comp that after the first report that comes along he says that this was a sudden onset of symptoms that occurred while walking  and there it was simply would have happened no matter what then that had nothing to do with the call a margin of twenty three he also says that officer rivera was having or the months leading up to the injury in two thousand and ten where there was any symptoms any treatment or any problems pain anyone the patients that the officer was having whatsoever with respect to his right knee and that is he based the every six months statement on a report from two thousand and seven to where officer vera was treated with respect to his knee he was also having some gout symptoms that i am so dr miller really rich hence this coverage six months treatment opinions that the pension or the scene where he actually went through that november two thousand and seven call and indicated you know it's still going to get at the march injury was a aggravating factor and without ups of a scout initiate back in two thousand and six and two thousand and seven approximately every six months but his right knee condition was not it was not a particularly regular issue wasn't happening every six months pain is the limitation in the inflammation in the knee is all preexisting but that's simply defies common sense is there any that you know no there's no evidence in the record surgery in july of two thousand and ten but the physical therapy wasn't getting him back it wasn't improving in the condition so the doctors all say he's the same as a result of own is needed the i guess the combination of the surgery and the arthritic about what considered an active duty i think the case law is right there in illinois at this point that what officer rivera was going to certainly would qualify as an active duty responding to a call this this wasn't just as dr miller homework that march two thousand and ten call the officer would continue to work for a restricted duties with no issues  in the fact that we have a similar situation in the way days the question we're we're relying upon one physician to disconnect the line of duty injury and that's what that here you have two doctors that are actually three injury similar the situation here you know we don't dispute that offer any problems but those knee problems were rectified early on well before he was hired by a point at which the army was able to work and that's what you have here dr miller admit in this deposition that there was no records to show we had problems every six months there is no evidence in the record that this was just a sudden onset of pain and that the other two doctors that were relied upon  one doctor mitten they changed their opinion after reviewing dr miller's that position testimony which you would think after seeing that he had no record of ever six months that that would have occurred here but if you know the record is devoid of why the november where he's continuing to changes of any annoying the change he took out an exacerbation from the work related injury and said no his pain symptoms and limitations are all preexisting and like the w for the pension were backers and many months later over a year later the say there was no swelling or pain in the mean there was no symptoms and all those symptoms will preach this thing that it defies the facts in the record defies common sense this officer w was what counsel for the poet is asking you to do is essentially really weigh the evidence especially the medical evidence in this case which is something the case law says the courts are clearly prohibited from doing your honors in this case as we've as we've covered the question what went over voluminous amounts of medical records in the many instances medical records from more than one doctor in more than one opinion three of the four independent medical examiners in this case the worker's comp doctor and two of the three independent medical examinations done by the pension were all found that the applicants disability has no correlation whatsoever to the incident of the call that he was responding are that the cause of his disability is solely and entirely due to his preexisting condition not the incident of the call that he was fond of to the doctor really went on to say in that same aboard his injury has nothing to we well i think that's one of the things that is missing you know in a poet's argument your honor is that he picks and chooses you know that they change their opinion but what he ignores is the conclusion throughout the course of the hearing new evidence to come to light not aware that the pension board doctors ever issued an opinion on equivocally saying hey this is not related to or i'm sorry this is related to the active duty the all of this one of the  is a not this person is not disabled he was the only doctor in the way that said this is that not the case every other doctor had reached the opposite conclusion so in that case they said the supreme court said well we're overturning decision because the only person you relied on had improper you know aggravation it's also unclear because he did say everything that he went the officer complained of worth the symptoms he complained of prior to the day he stepped on her this is with his work  issue and there was no it there was a duty incident but they said this is clearly related to the prior condition and it's not related duty there is no nexus there must be a nexus in the medical evidence in this case does not provide them with any of the facts fine or with any evidence cause of the disability there is a significant medical history prior to the incident in question so the fact that he was released to full duty in was serving cryer that is insufficient the tie that to his disability  even said this has absolutely nothing to do with the active duty in question and that's what the standard is based on carrillo in the other cases we set a brief it's there must be some sort of nexus between the injury and the medical evidence is what should provide that hearing it's discussed when closed session as to which evidence to give more credit to or not and the pension border arrives a determination i think in this case if you look at the innocent they will lie on those opinions were clear and unequivocal the opinions that may or may sort of aggravation and it turns out that that evidence was not in the record as he admitted in his evidence deposition but again that is sufficient to create a nexus to a certain extent you reversing the burden and putting the burden on the board show no nexus when in reality the burden is on the  well i don't know the misrepresent of the base first the system your honor because even after the evidence deposition admitting that yeah you know i did not have medical records for these years he does not change his opinion he does not reverse course and say i therefore struck the prior opinion that i had in this and bear in mind that again in this case we had three doctors one of which was stuck in the lower front making his findings we even if you were to exclude dr miller's opinion the pension boy still had two doctors upon which they rely that does support their decision and the standard is any case in the goodman case and in both of those cases you had only one doctor who supported the pension board's determination and those cases were both up held an appeal on the opinion of only one doctor because again the standard is any evidence in the record or form to his disability which again in my experience is an unusual opening to get a doctor to mc to a position that we're which again i think is why the action board decided to give greater weight to those opinions because they were clear and unequivocal some of the other medical opinions were you know sort of wishy washy in terms of whether this did or did not aggravate or whether it could have contributed or not because it's a difficult analysis reasonable standpoint when you're dealing with a degenerative condition and then even injury  ones that change their minds don't have a good reason or any facts on the record as to why their opinion changed i don't want to clarify something that counselor was in error about it to treat positions were clear and unequivocal that this report he talks about in his report is initial report the november two thousand and seven fraud personal were prior to that he was having a flutter of the knee every six months and he didn't find that significant in in his ultimate determination on equivocally if this was an aggravation of an underlying condition what's interesting is the pension were through a sense doctor you know a smile after he does initial report and he says at page seventy five of the effective on the pension were attorneys was he what about this record from two thousand and seven does that alter your opinion i suggest that this kind of teaching that the independence of their physician at that point because you already have their record in find a significant dollars in aggravation but then you ask them to other times to look at additional records to see if that changes his opinion they don't change their opinion and say we got it wrong there is no way your vision the pain the swelling the limitations brought preexisting but that's not supported by the record and it's not supported by the facts in the record and that's why this what i recall from the record what was sent to the physicians after their initial opinion was that that position of the actor miller the work stamped actor which is a breach deposition in the record more or less i think what's significant about is he admits he didn't have any  that if these doctors had not had any indication right just rendering their opinion that there were priors in the molecule you over seven that which is contrary to the treating physicians that all say after that work related injury there was significant swelling and a significant exacerbation of this of the pain symptoms so even if there was prior  at workers comp i think it's very similar oftentimes pension cases you look to the worker's comp back to determine whether or not the causation was there i think a causative factor which is the standard under pension cases but to determine whether