focuses in on whether there was some evidence sufficient evidence to support the agency's determination and in doing so if if the court were to  find that some evidence supported a factual determination be made by the agency the commission then because they are the reviewing court cannot  evidence determine conflicts resolve conflicts and substitute its determination for the determination of the agency the agency decision is then affirmed and effectively it becomes  that court review becomes a rubber stamp of the agency proceedings are the reason for that is that the only situation that comes to mind is if the agency   the principle that deference to the agency determination is not boundless or limitless the agency can have its determination overturned even though well the commission did not look at did not consider all of the evidence and that is what's apparent in this case is that the agenc decision is basically based on the report from the eye of meat actor doctor saying and a couple of extraneous other comments that i'd like to address the focus gets four pages effectively out of the more than two hundred plus pages of medical records that have been supplied in the course of various treating doctors who saw plaintiff over six months or longer period who administered various tests saw multiple times on clinical examinations and came to the conclusion that he had suffered a work related injury and that they were dealing with so tell us what was wrong with saying since opinion is wrong because number one the fundamental problem is that he used he a value weighted and discarded  positive waddell's signs during the course of the year of his one time examination that likely lasted less than an hour but he did examine the claimant did he know he did not all the other experts examined the limit know everybody else examined and everybody else not only examined them but treated them in one respect or another missing so he did also review the m r i and the other objective diagnostic done by michigan state that concluded that it's inappropriate to use positive waddell signs as evidence of a lingering credibility symptom reactive be the use of the what else signs of eventually morphed into this false theory that it was reflective of a lingering and therefore lack of credibility  assumption as to what the purpose or what the conclusion should be reached having come to a finding that having come to a conclusion that there was a presence of positive y dallas somebodies mouth or any other kind of device that comes out with a specific pain level pain level exactly but it just negates what your earlier statement when i said you do there is no metric there's or organic thing or measurement or anything other triplet multiple times over an extended period of time he had the benefit of interpretating the using the m r i which showed the presence of problems  he comes in and complains about pain in this low back to everybody who examined him with pain going down his leg room numbness in radiation all of which was consistent with what the m r i and the e m g objective lee showed his statements to each of the physicians who examined him were consistent with those complaints he consistently made the same complain about pain in the degree of pain and what was causing the pain to each of the physicians who examined him and who treated them then the argument has come into the field but we generally don't decide cases on the the basis upon which he ultimately made the conclusion that he had not suffered a work related injury was these positive waddell's signs and that's been discredited and it's i notice  there doesn't there's no evidence and no medical evidence whatsoever he had any kind of be a brain or any kind of pain along the lines of question of what he later complained about afterwards dr singh's opinion also recognizes that there was some abnormality in the m r i as i said i think his reasoning for discounting or under playing the m r i and totally discounting the g don't have a decent foundation whatsoever and but he still describes triplets condition prognosis as guarded although he concludes that there was no work related injury there is no evidence anywhere else in the record that contradicts all the testimony all the reports from all the  that he had indeed suffered a work related injury and september th weighed in bowling have fact pattern that are very similar to the situation involving triplets there's an  outlier opinion there was unanimous agreement based on testing from treating physicians to the contrary that he that the person he had indeed suffered disabling cond pancreas to hundreds of pages of records from examining physicians better substantiated more complete relying on object of evidence consistency is statements from decision in a two to one decision is the at triple up work for a week and a heavy demanding job in the aftermath of injury st of all i don't believe that there that there's evidence to support the at triple went to cairo character and four of the five days the only day he apparently did go to work from which there is clear interpretation correct yes in the end though and i understand counsels argument respect to the waddell findings but those are that's an argument that needs to be raised at the commission level because it's a commission that determines credibility of the completely accurate now if a spec to the cases of waiting poll in the council raised those cases stand for the proposition that reviewing corsi to review the record as a whole to determine whether sufficient evidence exists it supports the administrative findings so if you look at the decision of wade be reviewing courts found that the minority doctor's opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole and other medical documents in the same issue of polling that they don't simply stand for the proposition that because one side has more physicians of the other than they must when they simply stand for the point that their view of course must review the record as a whole recommended surgery all had the benefit of  surgeon had a complaint about the original interpretation thought something was blurry or couldn't read properly so he went back and yes to see it and came back with an interpretation that  management actors and their free one else concluded the ads triplett he had experienced a work related injury because there was no other explanation for he worked without any problem as far as the record shows up to september th starting on september th he immediately reported to work after the weekend claimed that he had heard of the self at work and th friday and the rest of the medical record that developed from treating doctors consists of attempting to deal with the pain and discomfort he was experiencing spinal steroids injections he went through extensive physical therapy and finally gets to the recommendation from dr fisher at the conclusion of this trial saying that he needs he needs surgery to which triplet testified that he would have undergone the surgery he had at at that point so none of those doctors who saw him o basis over an extended period of time ever in any of those two hundred dollars plus pages of their reports made any reference whatsoever to sim to me or going for cation or  or or to some exaggeration or lingering as the basis for his pain the x that they have this presents the situation when you look at the tot ty of the evidence in the record as a whole you can't come to another conclusion other than to decide they had heat ahead indeed suffered a work related injury  contrast the evidence that was offered on behalf of triplet by his doctors who had treated him over the period of time as opposed to this one opinion based on a one time examination for less than an hour by someone who was brought in not to treat them merely to evaluate him for purposes of his worker's compensation claim it's impossible to