one of the things i'm going to support look at is the proper legal analysis of attacking outcome in terms of issues first we're going on to others in our time what constitutes good because i believe that after adverse rulings on any discussion on ruling by the commission after an adverse ruling on the statute of limitations is just stupid to it and the caissons transport company cases cited in passenger supreme court said that the cause they ruled on the have been right so it puts the petition on fair advantage i think we understand the essence of your position but what about the merits of the other obvious of the commission found against the claim the commission found against fire and the reason they did so was was clearly against the waiver yes there were there were two experts or two sides to this the experts for the petitioner and the experts for the response but the commission didn't decide those issues based on who the what credentials were those experts or what their opinions were the commission decided based on the medical records the treatment and there was nothing in these treatment records that could help you one way or another to rule in or rule out over presumably yes because i thought the medical rough reference the none of the claimants treating physicians believe the claimants condition was related to this sector that is said that it's wrong you can't find that in the well what they're saying is they didn't find it they didn't write it therefore we're presuming that they found the negative and i don't think that's fair vision when you're going to treatment records like this if there's something in that you can hang your hat on the commission gets depend on but if there's nothing in them at all and if it's a new macone else's case so there's no structure and it's an obstructed launch these days there are no keys there was absolutely nothing that these treatment doctors could have made a rational finding of disease on or lack of deceit and therefore there's nothing to support the position of the of the commission was that  picked dr westerfield nothing i could say but they didn't say that they said the opposite they listed their credentials are and alexander they listed the credentials of westerfield then they go right to the next paragraph and they say we made our decision based on this is what i'm asking you why can't we decide to give way to westerfield's testimony even if the commission didn't if it's in the record and we found by the rationale of the commission i believe you seventy four percent of the concept see for say never smoke smoke cigarettes so westerfield claimed just struck from the heart even though he also said that he couldn't say for sure of the part that actually damaged the lungs he said there was no disagree with the classification by mistress so i think there was no error in this decision i'm i will assume and i will take notice out completely just to avoid the whole issue right now but if you look at the commission decision the first thing th commission did they found that there was not an occupational disease when this case was appealed from the arbitrator of the commission the issues on appeal or occupational disease section want to have those six c section limitations they addressed all of them did they have to once they found that he didn't have an occupational that these we could have stopped however we also know that the commission decisions which have very little presidential value up here are published down there to keep a bizarre wants these doctors to write is we've looked at mr super today and he has shortness of breath and it is not due to cold us ok they're not going to do that these are doctors they say they set down if he has shortness of breath they're going to sit down what they think the causes of it are they put what his condition was and dr said his shortness of breath is due to his cardiac condition that's what the commission latched on to you know and to say oh well they were specifically looking for an occupation  a chest x rays it's not like nobody looked at him and said oh look there's something on there maybe we should look for something they didn't they said no cute infiltrates no pulmonary process there was nothing there so yes i believe the medical records in an of themselves are sufficient to affirm this decision without question when you have five hundred fourteen pages of medical records that span over twenty five years of a man's life contain at least eight separate x rays and actually have one physician saying hey i think the shortness of breath of his students cardiac problem yeah i think that's good enough that alone so we don't have to search in the records like they put mary by three for a reason to affirm this decision if you want to make it a little stronger you can tack on issues that were mentioned by by mr aris or he takes these kind of out of out of court which is why it's somewhat confusing like i said they found there was no occupational disease first ok and then when you go on to their decision they address the one  if you've got a first it order for there if it's a four under one out there has to be an occupational disease if the commission has found there is no occupational disease then the if you don't have it you're not going to need it under either one section one f which requires disablement showing of an occupational days then two years a lot it's irrelevant when you actually provided notice to the employer once again becomes irrelevant i guess that these were issues they were trying to provide guidance they don't tell us why they just have it in there but with that said you know i think the record the medical records in and of themselves you know five hundred forty pages twenty five years no one find anything there's a chest x rays there's so to say those aren't enough enough themselves i think it's it's really doing a disservice to the medical community has the only thing  what i can only assume the commission did the times that mr c first complained about dyspnea shortness on exertion he would get treatment for his cardiac condition which with then settle out the problem and the next time no complaints so you don't go from i'm severely this you know i need help i can't breathe too i have no complaints i'm feeling well it doesn't work that way and if you look at what the doctors are saying we're going to give him this medicine we're going to give him that medicine we're going to try this and that's what they did and if you and and the worst cases were when he was getting the the major surgery in ninety six that was the worst one of all and that's when they put the pacemaker realize that that's what the problem was and that's when the doctor was discussing hey this is why you feel this way this is why you have no energy because your heart's not pumping enough the way it's supposed to so i think the medical records are not i think the medical records coupled with dr westerfield push it over the top you know i i don't see that there's a legal error that's been committed here simply because medical records are enough in any case to decide if somebody should or should not get benefits and there's no carving out in the occupational de facto saying we're not going to use said i think that the decision is more than it needed to be but i do think that there's enough in this record without question to make a finding that he did not have an occupation they should not have been  one other issue with regard to the notice paper which in this case they specifically said there was no adequate notice there was no timely notice and that was a direct reference to the white station that had come out with regard to  notice the commission has the power to make the factual determination as soon as practicable occurred when that plane was filed if somebody writes a disablement they have september one thousand nine hundred ninety one application that's a factual determination the commission to make that it was not as soon as practicable i mean you can file a claim and how to be good enough which obviously can bring up the statue of patience but if it's an actual factual determination as to whether it's limitations has run a claim you can still buy a letter and you can still have a fair arbitration with a chance to win on the merits in other words you didn't hear them say the plane is completely apart from the staff people in the station not he didn't hear them say that if the was because they said there's no jurisdiction it's not necessary to talk about disability and said you have a court well when you talk about that it was improper and that's all i'm saying is you have to go through the front door of these decisions and as i read the act if you've blown the statute limitations that's if you don't get caught there's no discretion issues if there's no notice you cannot proceed shall not proceed therefore you can't