more your honour's bernie while on behalf of the city of dekalb the city of dekalb appeal says matter i as it believes that the decisions of the commission and the circuit court on the issues of accident causal arise as a out of or in the course of employment and those injuries that those risks that are encountered in employment in order to be causally connected or to be regarded case we believe that the determination of the commission was against the manifest weight of the evidence on the basis of injury it is clear that the employee had since two thousand forty eight inches wide and that had a number of monitors which the ones to which she referred most frequently were at eye level there were other monitors which captured emergency information which were not constantly monitor and when the information comes into that monitor it can be brought down to the monitors in front of her the console is adjustable so that it can be elevated the council itself can be elevated and lowered as well as her chair and as well as the level of the keyboard which she uses there is a second keyboard which she uses only once per day to log into the system and the other to keyboard is in front of her any phone calls that she answers are answered with a headset so with regard to that we believe that there is really and in her testimony with regard to what do you have to do what most do you make  relative to monitoring these computer terminals the computer monitors was that she turned her would have to turn her head forty five degrees and that would be found at page forty six and forty seven of the transcript on that forty five degrees is about what i'm turning my head right now i mean i understand the basic argument in the premise it's well sort of the for an injury to arise out of somebodies employment the risk either has to be a risk to which the public is generally not exposed that's the killer to the work and i think you've answered bedford but there's a second part of the case law has to be a wrist which the general public is exposed but the employee is exposed to a greater degree and i think that's what they're hanging their then with regard to that in a repetitive motion case both cases are approved by medical evidence that establishes the cause of connection between the conditions of work and the and the injury and in this case the only evidence in support of that was dr vance evidence deposition in which he acknowledges that he knew that she was a dispatcher but when he gave his original opinion on cross examination he said i didn't know anything about her condition i don't i don't know the extent to which she rotated her head at that he said that i never asked her about the actual conditions of her job i've never i've never asked her what the counsel that she looked at she sat looked at she never you never saw a picture of it he never viewed her job description and that is foundation for that opinion must be based upon fact and so what the what the city objects to is the causal connection that would that would create in a repetitive come trama case of the fact that this was indeed a risk that was greater than that to which the general public was exposed how would you respond to this argument that no one delineated apparently the number of times typically in the course of the day did this mr turner there but it appears that van was at least aware when it gave his opinion that involved a lot of the claimant's work was equated to turning back rotation inflections so he certainly knew that she was turning quite a bit and he didn't get a number he did not get a number and we believe that under cases such as dialing that the definition those definitions must be part of the factual foundation for his for his opinion in order for that opinion to be valid rather than gas conjecture and with respect to that dr van the only time that he ever said anything about it haitian was in response to a hypothetical question which she had to she had to monitor computer screens that were at different angles and heights now even she doesn't say that that she was elevating her head back and forth so the  by the supervisor was that all of these beads monitors are situated in such a way that you can actually see and monitor them by glancing back and forth and by very very minimal turning of the head or neck and by rotating your chair not your neck so there was nothing that dr van was ever supplied with that said that in monitoring these these monitors that she was ever required to rotate her neck he made that leap from the fact that she had to monitor these things that were at different angles without specifying as to what they were or what those angles work and then made that connection well there must be a great deal of rotation and that he and the only way  supported his causal connection was to say that well she had ridiculous pain which was distinct between the time that i saw her in october of two thousand seven and the time that i saw her in november of two thousand and seven so something must have happened that there is no other trauma and so that sort of shifts the burden of proof in which we have objected to the shifting of the burden of proof that say is that well because there was no other trauma it must be now if there were other facts that lead in a circumstantial chain the lack of some other some other accident or occurrence might be a link in a circumstantial chain but there's no such circumstantial change here it was well she's a dispatcher i was given these i was given this hypothetical question which doesn't fill exactly what you do and by that by that i assume and i speculate and i conjecture that she must be rotating her head very frequently and there's nothing in the record that shows the quantification as to how that she does that on the other hand dr butler testified that he that he questioned her thoroughly a buyout the about the conditions of her employment and the extent to which she has movement that he reviewed the work station bed he looked at the that he looked at the job description and did did a very very thorough analysis of the facts that were presented to him about that and his determination was that these types of acts that these types of actions do not subject her to any further risk than would be common to the general public well yes that's correct response to this question that you asked us to discount vance testimony that the commission found to be credible legal that we would be running afoul of the principle we're not whether or not a different conclusion would be reached but whether or not there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the opinions were expressed by the commission or the determination that was reached by the determination this is not there is always a manifest weight standard and we never invite the court the court is not always invited to substitute a judgment for another but the  but the but the role in looking at whether or not there is a manifest whether or not something such is is meets the manifest weight of the evidence is whether or not there's anything in the record that supports that opinion in this case we s dispatcher he didn't he admits in his cross examination that he never asked her and never considered that and then we get a hypothetical question to which the follow up to which there was an objection to foundation that was that was made  that does not supply really anything bad is that is substantial as to what these actions really work so we would say that there was nothing within that foundation that just because he has that that opinion must be based upon factual upon upon actual facts that support that opinion and we would we would think that that was not was not correct  not based upon facts which would which would base upon which he could basic conclusion that what she was doing at her work was anything other than what people would normally do better with time and weight in that case there were two physician opinions for the respondent the contradicted the treating doctors position in that case the respondent made the same argument that the respondent makes here that is this doctor's opinion better in that case opinion you really should ignore that because it's not founded and not shouldn't be relied on because it was rendered in excess of a year after the claimant began trading with him for this cervical degenerative condition to respond to called it tower in this case this court should've from the decision of the commission number one dr dan treated his patients both before and after there was an m r i from two thousand and five of the cervical mac there was an m discrimination observable in the november two thousand and seven m r i it wasn't there that green he didn't get into it you know he did review a four or five page jab description for this employee but he did have the benefit of having do we have a need for it and so i believe she testified if i'm not mistaken she said about sixty percent of the time she spent you doing the keyboard operations involving the repetitive entry of the edit and watching the screens for the side to side movement the other thing is that this isn't just somebody who's you know a security guard watching monitors this is someone who had to rapidly respond in emergency situations including move to respond to the situations these dispatchers in the city both police and fire and they're also there multitasking doing other jobs in addition to even doing paperwork required to reach behind or grab these binders and to get in a binder so she's doing this constantly during the course of the day often down the stairs go into the dispatch room and spending some time actually observing the dispatcher another dispatcher in the course of her employment looking at the screens getting a full as she said you know a full a three hundred  sixty degree view of the room and being in a position of servos jobbik of a piece so for those reasons i think that there's more than enough here in terms of evidence to justify the commission's decision i would soon to this court there's not enough here there's a there's there's nothing here that says that there's an absence of any basis on the part of the commission or to enter its decision and for that reason we were forced to respect for us to to affirm the decisions supplied with a great deal of information about how that accident you know how that how those job actions place that person in very unusual conditions that there was indeed rotation that there was extreme rotation that he had to look behind team that there was pumping that there was that there was actually twisting here dr van had no information to show what the actual body mechanics were said this is what she had to do but didn't have any idea of the extent he leapt to the fact that there was rotation and that he leapt to the fact that because she didn't have a month ago and she has it now and that now that the that the herniation occurs and i believe it occurred within that month because it because of the radiation down to the arm which medical records show that there was referred pain long before that that therefore there must case and the courts said well we have information that this person works over his head and he exerts pressure and he turns and that the that the symptomatology happens can see you know contemporaneously exactly with that with that motion and so that we knew that those positions knew the mechanics of that injury we don't believe that dr van did and that we would also indicate that when dr van also says at the end that after the surgery that she was fantastic and that he could and that she did have some that the pain that she had was really the same that she had prior to the to the occurrence  and that he didn't know why she was experiencing that pain so we believe that she that when she after the post surgery she went back to work without restrictions went back to doing everything that she was doing and she went back to feeling the way she was feeling for that event which dr band says is the only event which she relates to the accident so we believe that under eighty two that there is not the level of