disability benefits from twenty two point five percent loss of use of the right way to fifteen percent loss of use of a right way the commission consider the factors of checked section eight point one b of the illinois workers compensation act and it's w prove all of our elements of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence we feel we didn't use this burden in proving causal connection for the following reasons first mr watts didn't seek medical treatment after the first emergency room visit on november represent mr watson this matter i'm going to keep my comments brief first of all so i'm just going to cut right to it they're saying under cornbelt that the commission didn't do it right well the next sentence after when they're talking about it in the first paragraph they say we're changing the p p d number but we are otherwise affirming and adopting the decision of the arbitrator which is attached here to and made a part here a literally stapled to that is the arbitration award that is made a part of the commission decision and it page six of the arbitration award arbitrator dollars and go through all five factors and gives the way that is a part of the commission decision they don't restate all the facts when they make modifications they've adopted the arbitrator's decision the only thing they changed was the p p d number but they otherwise adopted it in on pa it that is sufficient even though they've themselves did not specifically address that that's exactly what i'm saying your only case is to support them that get this vote i'm going to say first of all common sense they've adopted the whole arbitration award in the factors are they are there but their decision while it doesn't have the or sentence of the five senses i give some way no wait up they do it right they adopt the arbitrators award w that is laid out so i believe that their decision does comply with cornbelt it's a complete waste of judicial economy to send it down to the commission to ask for sentences that are already a part of the award by adopting the arbitration award do we throw out all the facts because the commission doesn't list all the facts in there no we don't they incorporated all those findings they considered the same factors they're apparently saying we give the same weight we just come to a lower sure there are nothing you're out or it has not been fleshed out i think at this point by courts what what it entails to say that i give this much relevance and why i don't think there's any justice needs from some factors that would justify the cheek if they turn around and say oh we read the a m a report it said to two percent we're giving him two percent we don't think any of you know other factors outweigh the a m a report that if you're a reason why in this case there isn't a single reason the statute doesn't say that they were the words that were supposed to be used to explain that so it right now in my industry in the industry they come up is long as those factors are considered and there are some mention of the way that they are given which is you know it's a long as they're within the manifest weight of the evidence there's there's no expert here for the other side there's my guys testimony we know we had an injury we know we had an acute injury they didn't even hire an expert to question any of that so that was the reason why i filed a motion for sanctions here because fifteen percent of the way for him in this case to take that case up here when they don't even have an i am me they are wasting your time my time and most importantly they're delaying my client from getting this that has interpreted those requirements so far i would attest that this court that this this commission decision complies because they adopted the arbitrators award were those factors are discussed and the weight given to them is discussed we understand the argument entirety and not reduce the p p p by reducing it somehow disagreed with the way that arbitrator previously assigned some of these factors some way so simply by saying obviously assigned some different weight or some different method of a value waiting and because they came up with a lower figure and if they explain why they chose to reject their answered point they didn't do that well what i would ask this court to do is to find that these are factual determination that their findings are not it this is an arbitrator and a unanimous panel of commissioners in that you find that their decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence impairment rating is never the permanent disability assigned and i think by adopting arbitrators work that they consider the appropriate factors under current yes exactly so i agree with justice harris the oil workers compensation commission modify the award they don't explain their reasoning of the weight or the relevance of the factors when they lowered it from