commission reversed that ten percent award and deny the claim for what i consider to be a lot i'm going to argue already weak and unfair reasons i'm asking party to reverse the commission denial because it's incomplete and it's wrong as a matter of law you say is i don't think they rule on anything i think that they i think that what they did was they said here's a disease that has no disabling so what are you going to say with these type disease we just go to the disablement and my case for that is the david simpson case that was what has been present of the commission the commission will not basis determination on which expert should be given more weight than another i don't know how you decide and work on the us if you don't give somebody more waves and light switch and then they went further and this is terminations on whether the guy had to save them and then forget the disease is another thing i can't figure out and as you know i'm hopefully getting more sharp each day after my surgery and sometimes i look and think what was i thinking about yesterday when i look at this case but to say is this the commission here has taken a funny turn and it's very hard to figure them out now there are history words being very thorough as has dozens of issues he's brought up in his brief but ninety percent of them don't apply anymore once we get to the one we're talking about and so i'm not going to talk about them sworn out a document that counts is that commission denial and here burdened by common sense how states several facts that can't be no ground zero i'm third the universal testimony under spew that testimony is a coal mine dust can cause every one of these diseases for that stipulated by response witnesses the claimant have sufficient mind exposure to cause each of these director of coronary division at what used to be cook county hospital stroger now medical director all the nation's black lung clinics and of course instructor for nine and interpreted tom in a function test and one of the three reader set of opinions over another and then i'll skip to the line that i am most intrigued by the mentions faded yet when one has been presented to the commission the commission will not basis of terminations on which expert should be given more weight than another what is the commission signed there in regards to of evaluating the experts testimony h go with them and that's really all the further you can go because we can't read the x rays ourself well there's no other data to it it's just a pill and so the arbitrator in saying little said all there was to be said because they made the decision we've got a man decision in front of us and so it's kind of hard for me to argue the manifest weight question when there's nothing to argue about the argument is that they did not make a decision  the argument is they paid no attention to the simpson case to the selma case and knowing what his statement really is in these cases if if you wouldn't mind i'd like to talk to you about that for a minute the is if if i get my wish to go back all they've got to say we do think they're more persuasive then i'll be here in three years and it won't be against manifest weigh the evidence nonetheless the law something we have to do one step at a time they fun thing to argue twenty years ago it's not anymore there's there's nothing there that the commission just choose one of the other nurses there's always something you haven't to support that you know manifest weight argument but in this case both doctors found chronic asthma and gave two other prescriptions but they don't talk about that either that would be evidence that you'd have to wait when you're talking about the obstructive disease so i could be misreading here i hope i'm what disabled and it's defined in section one eat the justice here is the very last sentence of the commission's decision and pinion on ruby on page thirteen before it is therefore ordered paragraph reads in part petitioner was not disabled as no one interpretation for what they're saying here is that the evidence here is balanced and we're not picking one or the other but  i don't need to tell you that this is a manifest weight question i would also point out if this decision is supported by the evidence regardless of the rational now whatever and even if it was crazy  then it should be firm i can go into the evidence but now we're just arguing the facts again as we read it before the commission and i don't see a lot became by that i just want to in response to something mr was so e in regard to his speech seen by an allergist of the commission not addressing that it actually isn't bad i think now i have to remember if it was actually in their opinion but in the facts of the