coronary artery disease which is her disabling condition was at least partially cause or a contributing factor was her job to work a two movies during her sixteen years between sixteen and seventeen years she was just recently on the job it was a significant period of time she was in the fire service she was hired in october of ninety four underwent a physical examination as all firefighters who are hired by fire departments go through there was no that she has had been suffering from many coronary artery disease at that point in time sixteen years at the difference i don't believe there is a difference i know there were some argument or some suggestion about are we dealing with life in far which were there was a specific incident where there was d m as to the heart tissue that wasn't this particular case i know there was an interplay between some terminology dog after all sclerosis which is coronary artery disease alternately she was suffering from coronary  testimony about medications for her cholesterol level that was fluctuating back and forth again we are not saying that those risk factors are part of the reason why she developed the coronary artery disease what we are saying in the position we are taking and we believe the medical evidence establishes that it is then her fires service and i'll get into that and more specifically that fire service was eight contributing stresses of the work shift the hours the exposures to cold temperatures are extreme temperatures the the anxiety the all of the exposures to the traumatic events and things of that nature cry now with respect to marry a doctor who does as you pointed out interestingly enough he was asked these questions when he was presented with after he offers opinion though i don't think it was caused by then it was provided with his evidence or deposition testimony on the other case even if it was a similar case dealing with smoking coronary artery disease things like nature in and she admitted he said well wait a minute the reason why he had two different opinions in this case he asked me this question was it a contributing clause or a factor and he said yes it was the pension board in this case the problem is and this was kind of articulated by the judge in the circuit court was there well you know do a stunning percentages or do you assign weights or degrees of ok if i'm looking at this factor this a factor in causing or contributing or exacerbating a condition disabling condition has to mean a certain level or certain percentage if you're dealing with all these other factors the reason for that clearly is it's a it's a medical  was ten percent and the family history was twenty percent of the smoking was thirty percent in all the exposures in the fire service the occupational exposure well that was only two percent it's an impossibility they didn't  recall he said he didn't consider it he didn't have a lot of now and you have them so when he was presented with some of the studies and some of the things like this doctor and i can certainly see in his testimony that i think it was a factor it's not certainly not a wavered or offered opinions saying that they were that the fire service was a after my reading of minimal as i looked at this is like dr gary found i'm disabled put specifically said this or because of all three pension board doctors in that case unequivocal he stated it was due to his long history of cigarette smoking now he tried to do strip an argument saying well the legislature under the occupational diseases section of the pension code say well there's a presumption that if you're on the police fire service more than five years are exposed to this toxic fumes and chemicals and things of that nature but again the core of th presumption in this particular case all three doctors are saying equivocally that the fire service and her exposures rains i am going to be the risks the whatever fire never comes out actually says straight out that it was a fair well i'm on page one twenty seven of the record this is testimony when they talk about well cigarette smoke has these chemicals and chemical and cigarette most certainly is a factor in developing corner on disease that he's provided with information of biology so studies that show what are the toxic chemicals in fire smoke and fumes and then they ask oh well if we could say will i remember going to one major fire in the you know in two thousand and six where we had to battle the blaze for four hours or i remember being exposed to you know a diesel truck turning stands for the proposition that one ten point one is a different standard than one ten because they both look to section one twelve which says you have to prove disability in i know of no  major factor ward the only factor and again i point out in the pension code for the chicago firefighters they have that specific language in there and there are cases they talk about and defended in his completely absent anything that says that there was any type of exposure to small cold insects her by telling you in this case which may have caused her resulted in of dumpster fires which it would have probably said issues car fires which would have issues and car fires related both to this stresses that you see in the trauma that you see as well as the fumes they know what type of worker they are there are all factors that they take into consideration in fact that's one reason that the courts have sent that you attribute more knowledge to those individuals because they're familiar with what  pressure somebody can go to the fire somebody can attend the fire to assign them to the paramedic ambulance she's a paramedic her partner or some other function in this case there was nothing the movie evidence brought on her part more than just a scintilla of evidence that it is these into service statutes and the fact is this was created because of the fact that you need a firefighters and fire fighters for thirty years over thirty year period and  all knew her the new fire reading skills etc they also were aware of how she treated yourself how she handled herself physically firefighters are provided all sorts of exercise equipment you go to a fire thank you again as justice per pointed out i have a problem and i believe this court has a problem with when you read the decision of the pension words to me it appears that they are citations on page twelve of the decision the board says the applicant has not overcome the requirement that her heart condition was a result of fire duties the can stop them when he points to no specific is a progress in disease and it's because testifies that well she had all these other factors but again she also had the additional factors of exposure to smoke exposure to toxic chemicals vessels they become brittle and again exposure to toxic chemicals stresses that's why people have heart attacks because of the brittle is the stresses that constricts the blood vessels that contributes to the endothelium it's a progression over time i'm not saying that her obesity you were smoking was her family history or anything else also are factors over progression period of time but she was also a firefighter paramedic to patients she had exposures in her occupation the combination of both probably accelerated the progression of the coronary artery disease the doctors did say yeah that's that's will you need to go on disability and nobody disagrees that is to say correct but no i don't think it was the door the floodgates or the slippery slope that everyone is going to apply for because you know not everyone you know a firefighter first this is now the want to take so if you say he's going to open the door i believe look at every case and the facts of that particular case and you can say well these people didn't get it so she can't get