disability those are largely undisputed for the world does bring up some facts where they found that the author was not credible i'd be happy to address those in a minute but i think the more important point is whether or not the point of better what we prove causation and whether or not to prove that this was an active duty as the find by the case law on the article three to allow him to receive a line of duty disability we submit that he met his burden of proof on both of those issues and the reason being first off start with we believe we've done that here based on the medical evidence that was provided to the four of approximately five medical opinions that were front of the board that they analyzed in their decision in order and in those opinions all the positions and in some way shape or says well it's his body the viscous that is it is was also a cause of the condition meaning you know the makeup of his by the look that of myself to see what that means really just means your body and you know you take the officers that as you a call it was on his way to an emergency call he was doing routine patrol duties and as a result of that car accident he sustained orthopedic injuries it was the same there you know what went through great analysis to the different cases that talked about active  with respect to the case law in that case the defendants argue well he was just driving ordinary citizens in the ordinary walks of life they drive all the time therefore this can't be an active duty jones for the spell that argument and said well you know patrol duties is unlike any other ordinary civilian occupation they have to remain vigilant you're looking out for crimes things of that nature therefore even routine patrol when you're not actually dispatched to a car performing that it still would count as an active duty  case that was analyzed and by the jones court and in all you had an officer that was performing bicycle patrol duties there was no specific incident no specific trauma that occurred while he was performing his bicycle patrol duties it was just whitman while he was going by patrol yet remain vigilant while he was going by patrol over various terrain and sometimes at night and that takes it out of what an ordinary citizen in the ordinary walks of life would do reports he was looking for the numbers here i think in the last year in four months was ninety three incident reports forty five tickets fifty crash reports the year before there was one hundred thirty seven narrative case reports one hundred traffic tickets in that as in twenty eleven and he indicated that the problem seemed to come about when he had to do the longer reports is it fair to say that i mean the traffic tickets they talked about those on the a one page report it does appear that while doing reports he would get the teaching experience crap in his hands but never really thought that that was significant it wasn't until he was off work getting treatment for approximately seven months defense coulson makes they say well the board didn't find impreza credible many testify before then your review was testimony i mean i don't think he could have been more honest with the poor he said hey look the first time i realized i have a real problem my hands and fingers when i'm driving home from my in laws and my hands when i nominate you know the seven issues my wife asked me you know i should pull over and maybe she should drop you know he didn't say it was so i was sitting in my squad car when i noticed that and i was on duty at the exact time the symptoms started to really magnify issue you know the the the boarding head to hang their head on something to deny him his his line of duty disability the case law doesn't support denial so they went to the credibility issue and the credibility things that they raise in the board's decision really have very little to do with report writing and his patrol duties as why the question is credibility even though what they do question is suspect that lisa my opinion they talk about you know he told someone a pullout is gone several times and i mother said i pulled out my gun numerous times to me that's really semantics and i don't see any inconsistency in those two statements they talk about him doing text messages that he would text a lot after he was diagnosed with this condition in the fact that tax somehow and that didn't cost him significant problems of that somehow was inconsistent with him applying for disability pension won't affect the board asked at least two of the physicians i see in the record they w texting have it in effect on his condition and doctor said no and he even demonstrated for the board here's how i can actually hold the phone like this there's a picture in the record of him holding on using showing how uses palms and you know it and even if he would experience it wouldn't allow him to perform the duties of holding a trips we can trigger the holding of a weapon or holding a taser a time things you would need to do as part of your job as a police officer which again the board didn't find issue whether or not he  which are really the two things that they ultimately found as to why they deny the line of the disability whether inconsistency that they mentioned was losing weight that he did not he didn't comply with his doctor's orders to lose weight when he was diagnosed with this condition he testified before the board credibly that he did lose weight get down to one hundred eighty five pounds and he didn't notice any difference in his condition so you know then finding that he didn't lose weight was not supported by the record or his testimony wasn't impeached on that issue or anything of that nature so again i think those these credibility issues were nonexistent i think they were more or less manufactured by the board in order to hang their hat on something isn't m the case lawson supports their denial of the claim in this matter i've been to get i think their decision against the manifest weight of the evidence when it comes to the causation issue because as i said there was at least five reports medical physician reports that said they're familiar with the demands of the job they reviewed the job description of of the police officer and they found at least in part the duties of a police officer with his writing an extensive while on duty was a causative factor in reliance upon the jones were swimming think case he was on routine patrol i think you have an additional factor here that he was writing reports while on patrol which was the cause and effect on the condition we don't have a specific traumatic event but as the own case says you don't need a specific traumatic event it's were you injured or disabled as a result performance of an active duty to be adequately proven that he was performing his duties even the job description itself indicates that he has t right reports as part of his job duties yes the use a pen and paper part of his jobs duties he has to be to be on patrol in a squad car on the site for the job description which is exhibit eighteen page one through three of the record the job description requires you require to see aggressively patrol is assigned b he prepares written reports complete and concise manner and conform with apartment policy so he was doing his job you know unfortunately he gets this condition you know each tried everything he could do to come back to work this is an officer of said hey i get i can diagnose what's up and i'm watching my ticket i'm outta here he had a surgery a carpal tunnel surgery in please score i'm glad counsel brought up the standard of review both parties agree that standard of review would be the standard view and unseated then it's a very high threshold the the board has to be given the significant amount of deference on what happened at the administrative hearing lovell so even if  board here was justified in denying the disability related pension because of all the contradictions all the the conflict evidence that was at the board's s some of this let's start with what the primary cause was as presented by the player in his opening statement plaintiff's counsel said the evidence is going to show that it was report writing that causes him during the hearing plaintiff testified to that pact as well but when you look at then the evidence of support deposition there's too many contradictions for example the we the board cresent objective evidence of the number of reports that he wrote for two thousand and eleven through two thousand is background information tell you that mr merrill nally wrote his reports wong him he didn't use a computer in his patrol car and in fact during the hearing there was no evidence of the extent basically there was no dispute by the plaintiff about the number of reports he wrote so over a fifteen month period he wrote fifteen traffic tickets he wrote forty five crash reports he wrote ninety three incident reports by his own testimony crash reports traffic tickets or one page the incident reports are two to three pages so there was no other testimony by the plaintiff who had the opportunity to bring in abbott and some of lengthy reports there was nothing in there about no evidence present about anything besides what the board produced as exhibits so in their follow brief they basically contend well he wrote fourteen  that's not far from what we contend either but if you take that break it down even further by pages by their own admission it's twenty pages a month that's less than a page or work  so the board thought this this is not extensive this is not repetitive this using common sense but then during the hearing mr marron alley i'm direct thompson basically said it was writing lengthy reports while in his troll car because of this condition one of our doctors it was one of our doctors admitted he basically said oh it was typing on his computer and typing reports on his computer but troll card but he didn't type reports he wrote him on here so right there was a disconnect between many of the doctors reports and his testimony and the objective fact that there were other discrepancies to dr mira and by the way it was dr war maris said oh he says that sam pretending suspects and doctors are bored so the same thing they both said oh it's also extensive use of firearms but by his own testimony he was only in june counters during his entire career as a police officer apprehend the suspect once in two thousand and six once in two thousand and eight as for his firearm use he had to go to the range once a year he admits that this fire is drawing his weapon he said first oh well several times then he said numerous times and if you read the transcript some of the and then after april twenty third two thousand and fourteen you testified he never even used a gun so you have all these again inconsistency between what the doctors broke and what he testified to there were also when he talked about onset of symptoms there weren't consistency between the onset of symptoms in the records and how he testified for example he  he says i've had this for the last six days when he goes to dr narula he says i've had this for the last ten days well that's april twenty fourth that's evil twenty seven and that's me first and then he goes to dr weil to walk in june of two thousand and thirteen says this happened on april twenty eighth two thousand and thirteen when i was driving home that's a fourth day need to get into a weight loss program need physical therapy he'd do physical therapy once a week for six weeks well he didn't go into a weight loss program and second he wanted to have six visible ther thompson another physician from barnes hospital so we need to put you in physical therapy to do it once a week for twelve weeks he won four out of twelve sessions as far as the desk job but no repetitive use of the saints but then that same time he's taxing outgoing tax on his phone we have records from eighteen key he did not spew beats in which he's three psychiatry's said he was the board adopted the psychologist opinion that he was not disabled and similarly here we adopted back the war of opinion that basically said well i think it's more that his body type is the more likely candidate for his t o s for assoc out than anything else that's the only thing the board  considering all the evidence that was before and why part prodi marconi's the supreme court basically said look or was faced with a bunch of implicating banks here it is their function existing condition and they have was not presented in the administrative hearing it was not put in his application as i said before in counsel's opening there was nothing to gave them or some type of of indication that they were going to claim a preexisting condition and we all know it's black letter law that if you don't address it at the argue that this was that report writing was a causative factor was a cause of his disability you know the plaintiffs the burden of proof doesn't include trucking the pension board and what the appropriate walk to apply is the case  pension a point a must prove the work is a causative factor contributing to the claimants this ability that's what i don't think that's a little bit different than a claim of aggravating and create existing condition i believe it's the same standard  honor when you when you read the cases here that they say to doesn't have to be the sole or primary cause just a causal factor so that if the japanese aggravated an underlying condition well that's a closet effect or i don't think it's the plaintiff's burden to have to establish well here here's our theory of the case on quantization for the board and that's the case law is exactly that says here's what causation means it means causative factor aggravation of an underlying condition all that is included part of causation  to any case law or any medical evidence that says otherwise and you heard a lot from opposing counsel here as to why they denied it but you don't hear him rely upon any medical evidence to deny th condition to me it worked it's it's there it's a distinction without a difference just this aggravation a preexisting condition or a causative factor in disability i think is if it's the exact same thing we're going to different way if the job duties aggravated the underlying condition well then the job duties are a causative factor in the disability and i think it was the board's duty to apply the appropriate legal standard when it decided causation which one party at the party who did map prevail it's the duty to reverse and that's the case here again dr de borde said it was report writing in an awkward position of preventing him from doing his work as a police officer doctor pops in a pi that was a long periods of writing in an awkward position that was part of the disability dr warren indicated that writing up his report on the steering wheel was a causative factor in the disability dr mayra said his disability resulted from repetitive hand movements and then as i mentioned dr work said it's we're doing extensive writing so there's not one medical opinion that said hey his work as a peace officer at absolutely nothing to do with the diagnose condition of that disability they don't have that here like in marc as counsel indicated marconi they had a bit of a psychiatrist that they relied upon that said that his job had nothing to do with the disability and that and that's why they came to that that the court there said yeah the word was justified in their reliance upon some common evidence in  we don't have that here that the dates of onset of symptoms my client was absolutely forthright with the board saying it had no this would be disabling first of all or you know he knew that the answer to the simple when it became the symptoms of the rest of us and i thank you for your time i would ask that this will reverse the decision of the pension fund and find that my client has sustained a line of discipline thank you very much i can counsel the case will be taken under