case what i'd like you to comment on specifically is i think we saw something in this case that we don't always see that is the arbitrator specifically which is reasoning in the sentiment that by the commission specifically articulated can you tell us how they fare when they get to waive the credibility in the weight of the that's right first off say that my my comment about the numbers of doctors didn't have to do the number it had to do with who they are and this is all related to dr phil opinions than respondents but that's a matter for the commission isn't it in the final analysis that after thirty years i finally figured out that what you're saying is exactly what needs to be done i'm still not articulating it very well but my point is it's not the qualifications of test best eastman and these temporally it's not where they've been before i'm not talking about them i'm not talking about their opinions i'm talking about the basis they didn't have to give us a bas which she wrote very careful i thought basis was not follow so what if i understand that we've got a situation here where there are equal number of doctors on the claim a standpoint evidence when i tell you why i'm going to think what i think i need to do what i said and what i'm asking here is for the court to send it back to the commission to do right which way they do right will be up to them so why should the commission have a lie then as it has when they relied upon the this is why this is why when you look to see what needs to be done i think the commission needs to get a look at this they may come out against me again i don't care but they have to say i'm saying that there was a basic state and that it should go back to him commission to review the evidence and make a determination if that was a proper basis our our how to stay with the basis the wording of that i'm not sure i've i was follow your lead on that obviously but it needs to go back and be done right that's not too much to ask for these miners they only one chance not a better movie different we're standing here most credible witness is the one who is not a part of the litigation if that's true you have three but she didn't mention the three and none of those were not only are they independent but doctor for his part of the chain current conditions employments that demonstrates it is significant history of smoking and or more co morbid factors are soley causative of present complaints as dr rosenberg small use so everything that you're talking about appears only in the paragraph where she finds in favor of the respondent m  and i appreciate there are good questions coming out here that kept me from getting to my notes in which i was going to say ideal on everything else i want to win on seeded p and c do you want it's a five year filing their other case that i might come to you of the apple e that there was sufficient evidence in the record this fourth the commission's findings in regard to their chest imaging in this case there were seven positive interpretations  chest x rays for like one five of those were five years there were seven negative interpretations of chest x rays were black lung all seven negative and just picking up on some of the questions revealed it was given to him by dr tazz begs for interpretation i was quickly looking to see if i had that radiology report and i don't have it with me but i suspect if you look and indication for saying that there's some mention there of this gentleman being worked up for black lung he finds the presence of grainy a lot of this is the he does not find the presence of  was based on and if i recall correctly he did not have any chest x ray evidence in his records of this gentleman at all and so you have to question his ability to diagnose the disease he also had no home unary function testing and in fact saw no need to do that until i believe it was twenty thirteen when this gentleman came to him and eat he was independent and more than man as they say if if you go back and look and i could be entirely wrong about this and you look at that radiology report the issue will be an indication of why that wasn't the only reason the arbitrator no ound incredible threat that's correct i believe that their findings of fact were sound they had to judge what evidence to give greater weight they did their job in that regard and i think without question there is sufficient evidence in the record support  my main point if you pile up the evidence which is all we can do up here we've got five people per claimant saying see that you pete got two for response and can't say done how that becomes a preponderance of evidence that he doesn't has he to fifty i don't know and the thing that makes this so important is it's brought up by response which is he's the one who says it now and you have to way he's going to answer their white spots on the x ray that's all you can tell but then he goes further and says you have to look at the whole package if you'll take that quote that mr works at and then just continue reading in the definition so you can't say that dr eastman didn't know what he was talking about you can't say that dr he stamboul he was less than knowledgeable about what was going on all you can say is that i am and i'm going to come back this because it is my only point and i think it's important and i think as i get older hopefully i'll bring this to you in a better way when i look at the fire i pick up a file what i do is i look and by the way there sense in this commission when you when i look at that file my only question is this not to be not did they disagree with what i want but did they have a basis for their pinion and did they