testified to was that mr franklin was working full duty at the time that this accident happened and this is also supported by my client testimony all of the evidence none of the doctors disagree with is he was mistreated this this man on and off over the years the last time he had seen him several years prior and he says that this accident in part clearly activated  concluded which was not supported by the evidence in this case is they found that he was not honest with dr i think it was dr month often about the fact that he had prior problems in those areas of his body treated him for those same problems so and that those records are in evidence so that conclusion is is nonsensical to be honest with you it's not supported by the evidence and those very records are in evidence also no that's true why did the cl is that making a plan i think what mr franklin does is he's a police officer he may deal with pain and his rate may be different than somebody else's great and what we know is before this accident he was able to get up and go to work it please the court hans off my name is jennifer primary i'm here on behalf of the city of st louis your honors you know the standard of review we've heard it all today you've heard it all this morning if every issue that has been raised in this is is a manifest weight of the evidence the conflict of evidence the question of facts the reasonable emphasis from the facts the medical issues the evaluations of witnesses you've seen the transcripts you've seen the records the arbitrator's decision was eleven pages the commission's decision was seventeen i think it's safe to say that the notes there's no evidence of a letter to any of those positions saying that there's a referral i agree with you're right that's how i took dr cornets to that position testimony when he said i you know he came to me by way of money health and that that was a referral from the two hard time seeing how bad is the same as think you hit the nail on the head we have a gentleman who went to his parents after didn't report an accident didn't report an increase of symptoms none of the diagnoses change we have a petitioner who goes to his orthopedic final surgeon doesn't mention an accident change in diagnoses nothing to attribute to a new alleged accident based on all of foregoing it cannot be said that the commission's decision on the matters of choice the physicians the cause of connection the medical treatment was against the manifest way that the evidence the petitioner was not credible either with his own treating physicians or trial the causation opinions of petitioners treating physicians were based on wholly inaccurate and incomplete histories the causation opinions of the section twelve examiners were supported by the medical records that they had reviewed as well as their discussions with the petitioner based upon the page thirty nine there is a section that talks about other issues not listed above so any issue that's not agreed to that there is no specific paragraph or that needs to be would you read to those of you don't mind review on oh yeah in their room to the extent they conflict with the statute nineteen be around in force and we've written those cases several times