was injured the pension board conducted multiple days of hearings received extremely voluminous documentary evidence nearly one thousand five hundred dollars pages which of course is in the record and ultimately voted to deny the police officers request for a line of duty disability procedurally speaking subsequent to the vote to deny but prior to finalizing their decision the applicant was sent for an additional functional capacity evaluation to determine the level of his ability to function at mr pradelle his request the pension board reconvene the hearing reopen the evidence accepted the new f c e into evidence even though they had already voted to deny and at the same time accepted an amendment to the application to see a not in the line of duty benefit in the alternatives to the request for the for the line of duty had the benefit of the job description so this issue of whether or not the job description was was reviewed in terms of rendering an opinion on the officers capability i would suggest it is a red herring in as much as all of the pension board doctors voted to deny yet again finding that the applicant was not disabled so the board did not reach the issue of whether or not this was an active duty or not an active duty and as much as they found him not disabled that was not an issue they needed to reach  there is some discussion briefly and that in the briefs on the standard of review to be applied we argue that the correct standard review is manifest weight of the evidence as this is a question of fact that's part of the you weighed case and more recently the buffalo grove fire tasteful cited in our brief the appellee does make an argument regarding review of documentary evidence that can be how to know that's from the wilford case we would suggest a couple of things the st is that the wilford case is materially different from this case in that case you had an issue that was primarily a legal interpretation and so don't know what would have been the correct standard of the view in that case anyways this case really relates to questions of fact  in terms of whether or not the facts give rise to a disability the buffalo is a recent case is cited in our brief as distinguishing wolf or on the same grounds essentially i believe that the pallies argument asked this court to reweigh the voluminous evidence that was heard by the pension board we cite the goodman case throughout our brief for the proposition that if there is evidence of record to support the board's decision to why each of us are competent but again i think the theme of the medical evidence in this case is true of the three i am me providers retained by the pension board found the applicant not disabled so this isn't a case where you have potentially one outlying doctor or or very little medical evidence to support the board's decision you have two of three i am me doctors who conducted in person exams of the applicant review record all two of the two of three found him to be not disable so turning to those doctors the st doctor that the pension board would rely on is dr b a for his report on because he missed diagnosed a label tear it's itemized in our brief but that's simply not the case if you look at dr be a force report the review is an m r i of the applicant's left shoulder that stated  true in addition to that remember that he also conducted an in person evaluation of the applicants so he isn't conducting simply a review based on the records he's conducting and in person review of the  applicants in his office gives me the nd doctor that would support the pension board's germination the applicant is not disabled was dr williams his report is in the record at page and twenty six again the appellee suggests that this report is inherently unreliable because relied on this earlier functional capacity evaluation that did not have the job description first it's important to note that that st f c was an f c that the officer was sent to by the employer not the pension board so we have no control over what records that evaluator reviewed but having said that  evaluator did adopt the medium physical demand level from the dictionary of occupational titles in reviewing it in conducting the f c c and if you look at the f c c look at the job description for a bolingbrook police officer which is in the record it adopts that exact same standard of medium physical demand level from the dictionary doctor patient titles it actually pulls from the from the dictionary and pastes the definition directly into the job scription and that's in the record at page six hundred and ninety dollars is the job scription so whether this f c e did or did not have the specific job description for bolingbrook police it used the correct standard in determining whether the officer was able to function as a police officer dr william specifically said and i quote from his report and one thousand one hundred and thirty two the objective test of his work function demonstrates the ability to complete the physical nature reports finding him not disabled we have two reports that conclusively find the applicants not disable now there was conflicting evidence in the record there's no question about that which is why this is a case again where i  would discourage the court from re weighing the evidence because you have conflicting evidence and it is the pension board's duty to weigh the conflicting evidence to reach the terminations so one of the conflicting evidence reports was one earlier you can't pick and choose and say we're going to rely on it for those opinions that find him disabled but we aren't going to rely on it for those opinions that find him to be not disable that the a doctor alpert opinion the board chose to lend lest credence to in their role as a fact finder because of that inconsistency because on the one hand he checks the box in his report saying i find officer happened to be disabled but on the other hand the narrative of report says well what i would send him back to work based on the f c e which said he could return to work as a police officer so his report is in kit in internally inconsistent and that he finds him disabled that then says i would return to work the other doctor that  return to work per the f c e but didn't qualify it by saying there are certain things as a police officer he should not do here's what i would say to that is recall that because jacked up shot it was a treat or he saw the applicant prior to the pension boards i'm the physicians so all of the i am a physicians saw a doctor try to report saw his recommendations saw his take on the results of the f c that mr hampton went through and again two of three of them concluded even after reading those reports that he is not disabled and can continue to serve as a bolingbrook police officer the other thing that i would note is in terms in finding him to be disabled his report is in the record of page six hundred and ninety six dollars again all of the pension boards doctors these reports and made their own determination obviously did they disagree with the treating physician and they disagree with dr mehta and it's important to note that dr medders report does not say this guy is disabled he can't be a police officer in fact it says that in june of two thousand and seventeen that mr hampton reported that is feeling significantly better he's progressing nicely at that point in time he was not yet at maximum medical improvement so there was still some road to go but dr medicine report does not suggest this guy is disabled now or d permanently for brief that's not the case namely the biggest difference is in the kazuki case you had three doctors who are found the police officer suffered from a disability due to low back pain in this case again that's not what we have what we have here is two of three doctors finding the police officer is not disabled so i suggest factually speaking that that case is not comparable to the to this one the other point that's raised frequently in the briefs is these reports of subjective pain from the police officer the police suggests are undisputed nobody questions his reports of subjective pain subjective pain does not rise to the level of disability and again all three of the pension board doctors conducted in person evaluation and read all the reports including these reports of subjective pain and all of them found him to be not disabled the last it looks red to me i apologies then for the reasons stated in our brief we would ask that you affirm the decision of the pension board and reverse the decision of the circuit court and we would stand on our brief for any points not argued thank you thank you was a bowling bush police officer for twelve years contributing to their pension fund we are asking you to reverse the decision of the board for two reasons one and st and foremost is they relied on incompetent i am me evidence to support their opinion and to most importantly they totally ignored the un contradicted credible evidence in the record that mr hampton suffered an injury in a serious car collision on december th of two thousand and sixteen and we believe that we met our burden of proof to present there at the board hearing with respect if i could take just one second to the standard of review that you should apply in this case we don't dispute that with respect to an administrative body's findings of fact that those are to be not boundless and that you are able as a reviewing court to look at the entire record not just focused on is there something in there that supports the board's decision you can look at the entire record are you do that under a clearly erroneous standard for a next question of one fact or a manifest weight standard we believe that under either of those prisms of review you should reverse divorce decision i would just had that with respect to this question i think it's important because i can't sure your counsel said in his opening statement this was not an extensive hearing that took place the hearing of the evidence took place on one day one half to noon for a couple of hours in consisted totally the testimonial evidence of the applicant mr hampton the rest of it was the introduction of medical records and the i m u reports so in reviewing that record you are going to be reviewing the i am me reports not the testimony of the i m u doctors and so when it is the case i think the courts have said that it's appropriate that you can review those documents don't know why in other words look at them for yourself to determine whether or not they're adequate evidence and i disagree with counsel that the wilford case is not a that case has never been overruled and in fact our supreme court in the wade and chris who kissed decisions it's clear that they've undertaken that same task looking at the entire record in determining whether or not a board's decision as to whether somebody is disabled is or is not against the manifest weight of the evidence so for those reasons we ask you to look at the entire record and not just on specific point i also need to address a couple of factual things that counsel said that were not correct first of all the st f c a functional capacity assessment that was done there was job description the nd test was a functional capacity evaluation and that was done at the direction of the bolingbrook police department after the denial of this c so that they could review it and determine whether it affected their opinions their request was denied by the boy or all the board did was say we'll take it into the record we've reviewed it it doesn't change our opinions but we're not going to let the i am me doctors look at it and respectfully the board is not composed of doctors they don't have the medical evidence or background to evaluate it so there was significant that they did not allow it to be examined by the i need but most importantly their f c and i courage the court to look at it clearly showed that mr hampton had deficit that would prevent him from performing his full duties with the bowl and board police departments particularly with respect to having to arrest people subdue philine suspects subdue people who are resisting arrest pushing heavy vehicles out of the way lifting or pulling injured people all the type of physical activities then of course he would need full use and strength of his left shoulder which he did not have one other significant point in the record that's undisputed and council didn't dispute it because he chant all of the i am a doctors all three of them all said he suffered an exacerbation of a preexisting asymptomatic arthritic condition in his left shoulder their findings of facts say you never had treatment for it didn't know he had arthritis and in fact there's no evidence that he was ever treated for anything and that was asymptomatic before the collision no question about that the doctors all say including all the treaters in the eye and me done for workman's comp that the incident the collision was severe enough that it exacerbated or or you know aggravated that condition to make it symptomatic the only dispute here with the two line emmy's that say he's not the sable this well that was just temporary that was just temporary and it should have gone away and then he'll suffer the one term affects of that arthritis but that's just the natural progression of it over time so what we have here is it's undisputed that he had a significant collision that it caused an aggravation of a pre existing condition that was asymptomatic then under the law should entitle him and under you know many cases that we've cited and that the poor does not dispute entitle somebody to a disability benefit if the medical evidence supports that it was an aggravation of a preexisting condition and in this case there's no question that that's what happened now if i could just point out a couple other significant facts t graham that was done to a shoulder now that a guy arthur graham is not just a pitcher they inject dye into the shoulder and then they watch it how it looks inside of the shoulder so they can identify injuries and problems in the shoulder they die revealed that he has both a superior labor will take care which extends to the post area or inferior portion of the labor m n a bankcar the inside of the car that would cause you multi directional instability i encourage you to see their report it said pages four hundred and ten and four hundred and eleven of the wrecker dr lee who then examined and after that and every doctor who examined him for treatment purposes afterwards confirmed that he has the terror in the shoulder in that he has pap being catching clicking weakness and pain in their shoulder and in fact those complaints are consistent throughout all of the treating doctors exams throughout the file physical therapy throughout the work hard throughout the enemy reports consistent all the way through and not one doctor not one physical therapist nobody in this record questioned whether or not he was indeed experiencing the pain and limitations of motion that he indicated that he was and that's significant he attended nineteen physical therapy sessions without meeting without missing any of them he then did work har twenty sessions four to five hours a session where he's just working on that shoulder trying to rehabilitate it the evidence is also undisputed that dr chut ics who is treating doctor who sent him for the physical therapy in the work arnie examines him afterwards and says the worker nein and the physical therapy has now made it worse this pain is worse afterwards in his limitations are worse dr chaddock who sent him for the st functional capacity evaluation did not return him to work so that functional capacity evaluation wasn't significant enough for dr charter to say well ok you can return to work he said you can return with these restrictions no up pushing pulling arresting subjects trying to detain somebody who is committing a crime or struggling with an arrestee all those physical activities that he has to do as a sworn police officer he can't do them and the doctor restricted him from doing that and dr maida who is the i am me who he was sent to by the we're caught carrier again you know generally speaking they're very conservative when it comes to disability he had he was and that's a confident mechanism to cause the asymptomatic symptoms to become symptomatic and he put work restrictions of him on him of no lifting more than twenty pounds d that's interesting because i don't think i've heard this argument from them to this point in time that somehow his opinion is ambivalent dr elbert who's a board certified orthopedic surgeon and that even with a total shoulder replacement which several of the doctors are recommending as the only treatment left for him to do that's not going to guarantee a return to work for him so that evidence i submit to you and remember what is the burden of proof that the hearing model the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence that's in the board's own findings of fa they say he didn't meet the preponderance i say the preponderance is more likely than not fifty one percent to forty nine percent that's the accepted civil standard in all civil proceedings in the state of illinois yes to the appropriate burden of proof if you look at all of the evidence in this record they want to focus simply on the two i am used in our pleadings i earned our griefs i've pointed out in detail w competent evidence but if you look at the totality of the rest of the evidence in this case from all the other doctors it's clear that we met her burden of proof and i won't have a chance to come back to you but when counsel and argues that we're asking you to reweigh the evidence we're not we're just simply asking you to review the evidence in totality and find that we met our burden of proof please affirm the circuit court and reverse the board and rema liberty i o u an apology your light was yellow and not rod i'm very sorry if you need a little extra time well give that seo is not at all not at all judge the he's even asking you to look at the m r i and make a determination as the court as though you were a doctor again all of the doctors in this case saw that medical evidence and made their determination whether the standard of proof whether the standard is disabled they've reviewed the same m r i's that counsel is asking you to now conclude something other than what the doctors did there's no question there's a dispute in the medical evidence as to whether he is or is not disabled everyone can agree on that the question is what deference do you give to the pension board findings having reviewed that record and i suggest it would be inappropriate for reviewing court to insert itself in those proceedings when there is plenty of evidence of record the other thing that i would kno very quickly is i'd like to trust very briefly on the on the prospect thanks that counsel cited we just englishness in our brief but in summary that is an article for a fire case not an article three a police case the standard for line of duty disability is very very different for fire than it is for police the court in prospect this court actually acknowledged that the same is true here that case does not apply to this factual circumstances the other issue is in prosecuted three doctors who all said this guy has p t s d in this case again we don't have a unanimous panel of doctors saying he's disabled we have two of three i am is saying he is not disabled and again there is evidence that says he has but its dispute it i have nothing further to add i'm of course happy to answer any questions or he just says we have i hope i have a question underlying disease process and is more likely than not not related to the auto accident but if so i guess from that it i'm starting to find where are you saying that it the arthritis that was previously symptomatic is aggravated by the accident and is now progressing but that the progression is not related to the auto accident  says he sustained a temporary says the ratio of the time of the accident i don't believe this is permanent or caused an acceleration of the shoulders right us i guess i was startled to find he says that it's temporary and so losing something is temporary and if there were if we all agree that there were temporary means not forever in several hours i think that if he seems to be saying that this arthritis cannot be the basis for the disability understanding what he's saying i don't think so i think you have to parse it into a couple of parts in the st is the question is is a temporary and i think his conclusion is clearly it is as evidenced by his certificate that that the applicant is not disabled the issue of whether or not you can aggravate it is a different issue than whether or not he's disabled so i think what counsel is argue about in terms of aggravation is can you a line of duty disability from the aggravation of a preexisting condition everybody agrees that that is the case but that's not the question here the question here isn't whether he's disabled due to an aggravation it's whether he's disabled in the st place and the answer that question as quickly as possible