this court to consider and those are the issues of credibility and the medical evidence as an initial matter my supreme court ruled in kazoo casts barack's credibility decisions are review based upon in our credibility determinations now council of reviewing court however it is not supposed to supposed to really weigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence and as long as the  made a blanket statement that mr cracks was not disabled however that was the board's decision to make not dr when its decision to actually run off was only to determine the fitness of mr fox to return to duty and when he reviewed mr fox's condition he stated that mr fox was permanently disabled he said he could not perform his duties as a firefighter with me did disabled was was not he did not use the standard he used to have that the pension board is supposed to use in determining whether a firefighter is disabled or not  used the words he's not disabled but under the pension law he's not disabled now mr fact was able to work two shifts that may eleventh that may twelfth two thousand and eleven one of which was a volunteer overtime shift how can we conclude that he was permanently disabled from performing his job duties which is that the tests s injure initially in two thousand he had been working through his disability for eleven years continually being injured and injured and injured about seven times in two thousand and nine is injuries became more and more frequent two thousand and nine we had an injury two thousand and ten he had to od two thousand allowed he had won his condition had been getting worse and worse but he had continued to work and so the fact that he worked a couple two or three sets after his last injury didn't mean   he wives are completely on able to work it maddux backs going forward he was disabled from continuing to work at the level that he was required to work as a firefighter his injuries have been been more and more frequent the time period between his injuries it was taking him longer to recover know how we use that night and consistent with his claim to inability to perform his job duties as a firefighter paramedic because according to paul in case decided in the fifth district post injury activity does not cause i disability finding those two things are not inconsistent imo he wrote that another i mean he wrote it prior to the health so how is that not inconsistent with his ability to perform a student because the level of exertion require on your phone the level of exertion required to you who engage in recreational activities is not the same as the level of exertion required to perform the duties of a fire fire that's a very heavy duty job was there evidence of what his duties actually yes there is there there was testimony is that he was required to crawl squat climb ladders carry ladders carry people wayne who testif spells out exactly what firefighters still and their requirements and did he testify as to what duties he could not perform because of his band thing which of those duties he could perform he he was a paramedic and so his primary duties were to lift stretchers provide care to patients and perform training on the training exercises went beyond paramedic duties as far as lifting patients he was unable to lift structures other firefighters did that for him he would provide care and there were certain instances where he would be in the bathroom an ambulance and be moved around being knocked over and so he was having difficulty every time he was twisty you have difficulty twisting and so yes he did test cry of his into going to perform and would furthermore this refines didn't want to stop working it was the district's own doctor who said he can't work anymore he never came up and said i can't do this anymore the doctors had that and when you saw his own personal treating physician that doctor also side you can't do this anymore so three board doctors significantly but three foreign doctors all fed he his testimony dr white house said that there is always a possibility that he won't recover that he will go back to work and keep having the same problems then i'll go back to work and you really think a doctor was ever going to get one hundred percent guarantee i'm sorry i mean would you expect a physician to say if you have the surgery i guarantee you one hundred percent you're going to have full recovery absolutely not and that's why don't we put that all into somewhat of a context so i believe he said that this doctor thought that the surgery would significantly help your client yes but the board it is not allowed to make disability findings based on whatever the applicants treatment will make him better that's not the law of this state the law of the state is to make a determination at the time of application whether that person is disabled and as to whether the person is disabled or not and at the point he was reviewed by these three medical doctors the board's own doctors they all said he could not perform the duties o or that mr fox had litem did that come in through a question of an attorney of the board's attorney that's correct that's how it came out and is that evidence no it's not that she did not testify there was no documentarian evidence to show that the chiefs that this or that mr fox in fact why the next thing is that the board stated that mr fox's testimony was improbable and inconsistent big not specifying in their decision what about mr fox's testimony was improbable or inconsistent however i'm not implying that they needed to do th but if you look at the record if you look at the transcripts there's nothing in the transcripts that shows that mr fox's testimony was improbable or inconsistent he always testified consistently he always completely answered the board's questions mean the board decided without any evidence that mr fox must be lying about his injury because he was able to perform he was able to engage in post injury activity we've already touched on this a little bit injury activities are not relevant to the issue of disability and the fast in those cases are in reality as to the facts and mr facts this case they all agree that post injury activity does not equal the level of exertion required of a fire fire these are issues that a factual determination yes yes it was like i said the facts in most cases are very similar to the fa in mr fox's case mr franks had never been restricted from engaging in every day activities and recreation things in his yard because in bowl and he had a kid had gone white water rafting and had gone hunting and the board sad that based on the other hands i'm sorry the position as a firefighter paramedic up with the subjective complaints that he said you know through roughly some tired hearing throughout all these doctors reports these are also objective complaints oh mr fox however they were consistent with the activities he did before and it's not one of the things that he has complained he could not do in this case mr fox said i cannot write a bicycle he told the doctors i cannot write a bicycle that he had difficulty writing and he actually did and he drove part of the way that was part of what the record revealed that that's where he said whatever her testimony has his testimony correct and the board does not believe earlier i mean what care is there a count so that surgery would have corrected the pain and he did have since two thousand i guess a little later than that start with  is the fight issue mr franks had a history of being physically active he was engaged in sports all his life he had been an avid b writer writing the distance that he wrote it was not extreme for him he was fit to be able to do that he was ordered to go to physical therapy and engage in in as much activity as he was able to tolerate to be able to ride and the pain throughout the past eleven years comes and goes the pain comes and nulls issue is that it is condition with herniations with the symptoms of and numbness in his leg and forwards he was our wrists he was a danger to the public although he could control his pain and be able to engage in activity he could not there were m r i reports there was a nerve conduction task performed those are objective those show impairment doctors opinions are objective evidence as that a board cannot rely on only wind down after his testimony been specifically that i think the point is they have to consume all of the testimony but ultimately they can decide who they find to be the  most credible based on the totality of the evidence yes i mean obviously if you have two physicians one says it's a once who is it's b the fact finder must pick one option or the other and my belief is that the case law requires them