here a while but i don't we don't really have much of a  i think you could safely assume that were you regret you're pre questions of law this is a manifest way case now in regard to this case there is no dispute that mr eichenbaum are sustained numerous injuries while performing an active duty shoulder i think there was something about a heart problem at one time but that was and this was clearly an injury that occurred while he was on duty driving a swipe there is no question about that your honor i think the wor case made him say gold and i'm able to return to work as a chicago police the private office the only issue in this case is really were the injuries sustained in the april on duty x of them the cause of the disability or was there an intervening other of the elements which caused the disability arose out of an incident in february seven zero seven when he had an incident in a bar fight that the scription of that bar fight is in the record  we arrived at an ordinary benefit the issue did not then come up as to whether this benefit if it were duty should have been fifty or seventy five percent as covered in the act one five four so we're dealing with an ordinary in the boards you an ordinary disability that supported the board's decision in this case well if you look at this case and you see with this for the after the accident  yes he would he was returning to work and then he was off work after all yes what happened was with the guy for the shoulder injury you can see from all of the reports in this case that there were no acute record will reflect that at the time of the hearing mr pariah could gave us or offered to give two of the four a correspondence from a doctor indicating that there was an error that it was why are we getting a letter from a different doctor explaining this why have we not getting the letter from the doctor who wrote it mr price and never less than answer they had but nevertheless we said except that into the record whatever he presented to us now this came up in the court proceeding because in a court proceeding what happened was this  i think the board was criticized for not asking questions of dr sherman by mr price in his brief and i suppose i was criticized generally for not asking those questions the and i think our orders supports it whether it was february second or february sixth second or february seventh is not the crucial issue in this case what's crucial in this case is what happened on february seventh was not some minor event as mr mr ike about a first for trade at the board but was a rather horrific event as he portrayed it to someone else oath and that that is the key to this case because all of the medical reports the serious this of the medical records the serious findings in the medical records all came after the firefight and so i believe the record is very clear in this case that there is evidence in this record to support the board for not defer doesn't act to far too but an agency yet here this was a factual question about what was the actual reason that is held and so what what is your response to the cases that say that generally if that the manifest weight of the evidence has not been the board's decision doesn't fact there is no trier of fact that would find the evidence meets the decision of the board now this matter really  right to make credibility by well again we have what we were seeing is he was basing it on the evidence that was presented to the board and what we have was a doctor paid for by the board dr i don't believe that's true in that medically speaking if you have nothing in the record here these are a bunch of medical reports saying they don't have life testing on here no we don't but we do no medical testimony in here howie back to that conclusion but again if i may your honor there's no evidence he was not one document showing that he sustained any injuries  i'm sorry your honor if i made but the evidence is replete that significant damage was done to the left shoulder at the drill injections were provided prior to february of two thousand and seven but i do have to go back to first seven is not one bit of evidence that he sought in that she received any medical treatment in fact he did not he walked early from that fight afraid it could and he walked away from it and he never saw the real bad pain was so severe he had to be rushed to rush ospital this is where the little issue came up so you're saying that there was no way am i right thing for a fifty thousand  left there very well may have been there yet there very well may have been and there were numerous before and here again there is we subpoenaed rush ospital for all right i'm sure twenty seventh two thousand and eight roughly a month before the jury we subpoenaed rush ospital and stated you missed all your medical records from mr adam bauer from january february the evidence shows that he had a problem with the shoulder right along ok there's no question about that but when we sit here in this court we can that substance to our judgment  injury that he had there was nothing but medical records to deal he gets the proud but there is not a there is a letter stating exactly what you would like don't know there's a cook losing by a doctor we don't know whether this stack what this factor knew would or didn't know or what records were given to him or what is the basis of his opinion but there is a conclusion by a physician in the record that shows that it was related to his initial lapse and i agree with a man who's been with the police department for twenty three years has raised his right hand hundreds of thousands of times in different venues drug cook county and he's always told the truth and route his way ridge could be construed in a number of ways the speculate you are someone well again i would just say that that there's no evidence or if there is any it's not enough to it is completely contradicts the manifest weight of the evidence there's been no objective evidence presented by the board not they pounced on a mistake that was clearly rectified they refused to put it in the record which was part of the underlying case and he did not secondly when he filed his initial brief in this case if something was missing from the record he could have made a motion at that time to supplement something he did th this particular document came up was in his reply brief when he first brought it to the attention and it's very clear if you read the record in this case you read the record in this case that that document was not available at the time of the board hearing because i specifically said him why are you giving me a report seeking to correct something from a doctor who didn't write it if he ha had the corrected letter he would have said to me mr cooler excuse me i here is the correct that letter he did not have it that now off the bat the issue in this case is really simple as i look at it is this no one disputes this man was injured i'm not to stand for the story and say he wasn't injured the question is what was the cause of the disability and for counsel to say that there's nothing in the record to support the board's decision is not true because if you read the board's order february seven fifteen an m r i for the first time reveals a slap there never appearing before if you look at mr i can bowers initial statement to the board as his description of this accident and then look at what he was  fronted with when the second statement was found that he had given about being annihilated and so forth you would see how the board came into its binding that they did not find