asia there's no contention that he acquired bacterial meningitis while in asia he's in the united states from june fourteenth to june twenty two thousand six hundred twenty he leaves the us for a business trip to brazil to arrives on june twenty first he's in brazil for period of approximately thirty six hours he returns back to the united states and june third twenty third is him and his wife go to the lake house on june twenty third and on june twenty fourth mr barber starts to experience food like symptoms and he passed away on the evening of june twenty fourth as a result of bacterial meningitis the arbitrator denied compensation finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish proof of exposure the commission reverse on doctors during stratton and minutes and then those doctors have impeccable credentials seen in pictures disease or if they do have impeccable credentials were not questioning their credentials but we are questioning the evidence upon which the experts base their opinion the experts attach a number of studies to the deposition transcripts as well as provided evidence all the absolute first to go behind their opinions and read these studies in basically say the experts were wrong in how they interpreted those studies deposition transcripts to nonsupport the experts conclusion said it was more likely than not or that there was a reasonable medical certainty for opining that he contract the meningitis while in prison i don't know because if we look at those studies argue that it doesn't and if the experts are not basing their opinions based on actual all this week that's when they're close to the argument you shouldn't believe this expert because and somebody has got to make a determination whether they're going to believe the  than not true that he came into contact with someone in brazil right why can't commission credit system only in what those experts base their opinion on is the infection rate right we have an infection rate in the united states of one out of one hundred thousand that's one ten thousandth of a percent we have an infection rate in brazil of two to five out of one hundred thousand in the in the these infectious disease specialist with impeccable credentials thought that was significant the good on the numbers if you want but these infectious disease specialists say that's a significant issue if the numbers on it which is what the experts base their opinions  that number alone that it that difference in the infection rate is sufficient to establish proof of occupational exposure then the commission's decision is not against manifest weight however we would argue that it still doesn't take it out of the it's we can't tell if you've got it against you two experts if they did you've got nothing on the other side so how is an apples a conclusion clearly apparent even with the argument of a flaw be sure with respect to the upon consideration of all the circumstances a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease isn't that what the commission did here they considered all the evidence the experts opinions knew we'd been to brazil and it appeared to the rational mind that it rules out of his employment and they awarded compensation i mean i would go back to just a scarce i think it was a reasonable question isn't this just a battle of the experts like what a rational mind but is there not evidence that the rate of exposure in the united states less than the rate of exposure in brazil is that is that that's just the that that evidence alone is not sufficient to take this case out of the realm of pure speculation and conjecture without something more to show that he was perhaps in those kinds of settings that the articles that are attached to the deposition transcripts describe used the word or the words very major red alert change that's sounds like maybe a hot zone famous meningitis bob well and that's that's what's wrong with what's wrong with his opinions is that when you actually review the studies there's no evidence of a common outbreak in the south part of the city which is where mr bauer what's ok then these the studies and the articles attached to the deposition transcripts talk about how the risk to travelers especially low and risk of contraction is rare they talk about how you would the risk of infection increases and exposure to crowded setting such as the hospital damaged america or college dormitory said when we talk about those things but it only takes one person right i mean he could he could walk in a bathroom and one person in that bathroom be a carrier and get them in jars exactly and when we talk about the infection rate in the united states and compared to brazil saying it's two to five times greater you can say that but it was and we're running out of one hundred thousand compared to two to five out of one hundred thousand he could have just as easily come into contact with somebody here in the united states during the period of time he was here based on the short duration of time he was there in the experts acknowledge that it's not possible to know when and how he can track that it even a pelleas experts acknowledge that it's possible he had meningitis before he left although they think it's unlikely and what they base their well because we think it the basis of his opinion is infection reality and there you would you you base it based on the opinions of your doctors and you would tap a week to be given to hear that they made the determination of weight i not all for experts acknowledge it's hard to know where exactly he got no work but but that's not the question if he is given an opinion saying in his opinion i can say he would not have died at this time in his life from this infection had he not made the trip to brazil and he indicates that his opinions are being given within the realm of probability not the realm of possibility so this takes it out of speculation or conjecture now you say patch wrong they have to or because you have a doctor in the centers that's not the case who gets to decide which of these two medical opinions they're going to believe what we say our argument is that which is something is rare when you when you hire experts that the two of them want to greet i'm and i did my own kind of independent blind study doesn't show that in the record but i keep both of the experts the records of you better be head so how do you respond he is no proof he has no documentation that the methodology is false his doctors never said that the methodology that was it was used by by dr strain or by dr drew was false he never raised any kind of emotion the methodology is a little bit the facts they look at the prevalence of disease in brazil is six times higher than it is in the united states they look at the the close connections the nexus between the time of travel and the date of death and then you look at all those factors everything matched up the commission looked at everything and they came up with the same conclusion everything matched up when you look at the spiraling decision that we the way this disease manifests itself the way this disease spread and the way it killed mr brower was such a redskin pace that he would have caught the disease by june of one team he would have been dead by june the sixteenth or june the seventy who never made a trip certainly agree with you just as often and again you look at the decision of the commission it's a three zero proof or so above a traitor came so you had three collective minds that looked at the same evidence and they all signed their name on  said this decision is within a reasonable rational standard and they found for fisher in this case a show when you take all things into consideration this case the decision of commission w the argument that we're making remains that the commissioner a wise onto experts and if we're talking about weight then we can talk about the way that the commission good cities experts opinions and accepting them but what the commission has done essentially is say that all that required to prove occupational exposer is showing a higher rate of infection in a place where you were visiting without anything more there was no evidence here to establish that mr bower came in contact with the carrier there was no evidence here to establish that mr bower was in crowded side the commission inferred that he had significant public contacts but all the evidence of record shows that any public contacts that he had were fairly limited iraq is in sao paolo he goes straight to the office he performs interviews with a limited number of employees he goes to a headhunters office performs a limited number of interviews there then goes to a restaurant which a witness for the appellant says five is fairly is filtered and it would have cleared out the air so the theory of the case is not that he contracted it on either his flight down or his flight back in the er port also another area where there are a lot of people the commission infer that he the airport constituted a place where there may have been significant contacts but again there's we don't believe it's a reasonable inference without any evidence in the additional evidence in the record to support it there's no