well the clerk please call the next day or sixteen or  so you may see court more on behalf of the city of springfield the commission decision in this case was not against the manifest weight and opposite pollution was not clearly a circuit judge it was wrong he should be reversed and the commission decision reinstate the judge obviously we waive the evidence here but he is not to try or fact as you well know he may be the trier of fact routinely in his job but that is not what he does in this particular case as he said in his opinion the issue is whether the injury to the claimants arms arose out of in the course of his employment and then said that employment must be a cause the factor but that's not the issue in front of  the issue in front of the doubt well was manifest weight of the evidence was the commission decision against the manifest weight which as i said is not the judge also indicated in his decision point here is your perspective right not mine yours the point here is that the commission relied at least in part on d he indicated that his understanding was that what he was told by mr lee it was a description of his main job and that was having to do with the electric meters which mr leka testified to and arbitration to listen to try hard to ascertain the amount of force and repetition that mr lee coped was doing in this job he told meaning keeping mr leka told dr lewis more about his job changing meters the job that he was doing in the last two or three years almost exclusively then he ever told dr wat well let me ask this in fairness to the other side that i mean can we characterize this as there was conflicting medical evidence of us or that right and the commission went through all that evidence and their decision and made the determination what evidence they thought was most important and entitle to more weight and reach their decision based upon their evaluation of the flipping evidence and i think you said in my brief there's always conflicting evidence  players here's what i was about to say we have what we have here and what the commission talked about was a discrepancy between what the guy really did and what he tried to make everybody believe he did my words he told you know on his actual report he said his job activities as a lineman causes problems he told dr weiss and he was a lineman dr watson was given a job description of a lineman to look at in terms of providing a causal connection opinion and job description of a line that was introduced at hearing this guy testified that he was in the traffic and meter department person fire career which was over twenty years with the city of springfield he was not a mine he may have been trained as a lineman but his job was traffic can be to repair man if you would the job description so of those two there are totally different it's a i'm saying it's a basis for the opinion of d and that's that's why i'm pointing this out the other thing is though that the commission indicated that this guy they felt lacked candor with regard to his job activities and that's part of that what i just said about the difference all not all again virtually all he did was changing out meters of the city was going from having people come to the breeder redirect her house to having a remote creation to a traffic light that's important you know traffic flow is important don't want people running into each other so they send somebody right away might it might be easier to think it's all you that's something someday somebody else maybe but the point is he doesn't do the placing meters all the time because there may be emergencies that he has to go do you his testimony was that he does that virtually all the time we got a script and said it was that fifty percent of the time which is probably true generally but in his testimony it's more than that in the last two and three years and that's obviously a line in the and that's a big difference in my wrestling nobody like the that the court today has the role of viewing the record and the evidence presented at the arbitration hearing i think it's important to note that this was not a unanimous decision at the commission level in fact one commissioner dissented stating and opining that the arbiter trader's decision should be of help so not all three commission approximately one year before the manifest date of x event he said that the evidence is relevant relatively insignificant given only because long work history and the fact that he returned to work to his regular duties approximately one year before the onset of severe symptoms and the subsequent diagnosis of dr trudeau mr leka has worked as a city of springfield employee for approximately twenty two years before the date of the injury he has worked in either medium to determine if of the fact finders determination of whether or not enough clearly of whether the opposite the result is clearly apparent so there is a rewiring that's done but we don't really weigh the evidence of using the preponderance standard we really weigh the evidence to determine if the opposite the conclusion is clearly apparent here it doesn't appear if of the  of review is operating with them of to the point where of finding is made that the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent but it doesn't seem that it's anywhere close to that here in the   i think that what he my interpretation and not mine to that ultimately matters but i think that what's the judge was doing was weighing no anyway going back as far as the and i think what's important here is and this all falls into the the  of the petitioner and discos as far as his job duties and his job roles what is important here is that the petitioner testified at that first up there's no evidence to support that or that the petitioner was anything but we're coming and fact the arbitrator noted that he was a forthcoming and credible witness i think that there's a lot lost between being present at the actual  n hearing and reading a cool transcript but for the reasons why the commission stated that the petitioner lacked candor is just not supported by the evidence first and foremost i want to address the present case law of the city of springfield versus the illinois workers compensation commission which is the fourth appellate court decision which has eerily similar fact patterns as to where we are here both for city of springfield employees who have been employed for twenty plus years the in the city of springfield case a c w l p employee who was an electrician carries the date because the i think that the manifest weight of the evidence shows is that the commission should have or was incorrect in assigning distinguishable because in springfield there was no contrary medical evidence you know there was no law there was no contrary evidence in springfield i mean dr lewis's opinions they're there based on an incorrect information it was called for and that's why you're arguing the foundation but there's a difference there was a very medical testimony i understand there's contrary medical testimony here however i'm what i'm saying is is that there might as well not be any medical evidence here because honor his testimony is flawed because he severely undervalued what the petitioner did in this case are did on a daily basis his opinions were essentially that the petitioner drove around in a truck for hours on end and would runs every four to six hours use a tool and would occasionally change out a meter additionally his of opinion as to what constituted if it was repeated in thirty second cycles as we know the case law says specifically in my brief i pointed to edward hines precision components versus industrial commission but also the city of springfield says that there is no legal requirement as to what a person percentage of time must be spent on a task for the duties to meet the love legal definition of repetitive and the city of springfield says while a claim of students may not have been repetitive in the sense that the same thing was done over and over again as on as secondly his opinions as to what the petitioner actually does is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever i understand that there is a difference in opinion as to a lineman and whether there is ali and job description vs a repairmen job description it was the petitioner step to monique that he while he worked in the major and trafficking department worked as a lineman but d testimony doesn't fit either of those job descriptions be if you look at i believe it was response exhibit two in your original transcript arbitration transcript it listed the  repairmen job description it was a lot more intensive than what dr lewis thought and in fact so i think the his that his decisions are just simply based on  time was there ever any evidence that was presented by the respondent that conflicted the petitioner's testimony that he worked as in as in a job duty that fell under the lineman i guess  purview and did neither and trafficking department so the commission essentially so chose to adopt the decisions of a section again as far as whether there was hander or not there is a lot of time going through right now thirty three exhibits as far as as what he jot or of what the petitioner did i mean he the commission just basically said all of that aside they said well we don't believe you there's no testimony or no evidence to rebut that that we're just going to ignore thirty three of exhibits for you talk about how you use this tool how much you use this tool how can you use this tool we're going to cast aside the fact your i don't know if i need to say anything about the other city springfield case but probably been so enough the guy was an electrician this guy wasn't an electrician mr blake i mean there are differences that in addition to what's already been stated  that stand out that they are the same case the with regard to dr watson his testimony is he knows what a lineman does cease been treating for over twenty years city of springfield line that's the point he didn't know what this guy was on a regular basis and what this guy told dr lewis was about doing the meters that's exactly what he told them about changing out meters as they said before dr lewis had a better idea than dr watson as to what this guy had been doing the last two or three years when his symptoms apparently a rose with regard to those thirty three exhibits that were mentioned what the commission advocated was they're not indicative of what this guy does on a regular basis or what his typical job duties are and that's because again he's been doing either changing for the last two or three years because of this plan in place and in process by the city of springfield to change them all out so they can reach them remote again i think the judge was wrong to reweigh the evidence put in his own decision regarding that evidence as opposed to looking at it in terms of manifest weight for the commission decision was not against manifest way i would ask that