conclusion of the commission is false the claimant didn't testify the sharpness of bread he testified to breathing problems there's a big difference between having breathing problems and having a specific breathing problem a shar this productions and the treatment records are full of those complaints not that much sharpness of breath in the treatment records but the treatment records are voluminous and many of these other breathing problems remain now there is no testimony or evidence in  well that was equally wrong and latest where we are today i say the commissioner now is against a manifest weight of evidence in requiring three records to contain documentation of charges of graft there's no basis in the record whatsoever to limit gave all the basis bases that he was asked for he was deposed sat in the treatment records available to him contain more testing was had by either doctor tooter our dr paul or the two sides and certainly more clinical data such as patient histories and physical exams and will be able to do all thorough he was claimants primary care physician he had the treatment records that prior treated dr sidwell who provided here and treated to claim for twenty one breathing problems which range all the way from chronic bronchitis to pulmonary collapse dr way it was a treating physician all of these wreckers constitute parts of the bases for his diagnoses  in fact he even if the commission didn't except the diagnoses when they were given by dr wade and by what he was deposition there is no reason given is in this decision for rejecting the same diagnoses which were contained in the medical records of least in part on petitioners had been in charge of breath for the preceding ten years as i've already stated shark suppressed is not a requirement for any of the diagnosis of dr paul in addition there's no requirement of the law that every testified quote from page fifteen of his deposition he did receive medicine that is used to treat breathing problems according to my note it's only after i'm sure that you received albuterol sometimes as well close  at arbitration a claim which showed the arbitrator the two inhalers he was taking the red including back to his testimony proves that the commission wrong claimant was taking breathing medication at the time dr tutors exam and i don't know how that  because of his cough and he also said to her also that coughing with that kind of exercise is something that be consistent with reactive airways disease one of the disease alleged but even if the claimant was not having breathing problems at the time of that examination package to even if at that time of dr tutor's exam he was not under a breathing medication and was not under treatment for breathing problems at the time  examination there could be no doubt that he was treated for breathing problems over before and after that examination twenty years before four years after i don't think a rational trier of fact can look at these treatment records have the starting point here for me anyway is dr tutor's testimony and his report which obviously are in evidence here first of all the commission indicated that that opinion that testimony was more persuasive now the words they found was entitled to more weight than anybody else pinion in this case and why would that be were is that appropriate here well dr tutor is board certified in internal medicine and pulmonary diseases so he has the qualifications he saw the claimant personally took a history from him did a physical examination on  reviewed pulmonary function studies which were done on the same day he signed the review chest x ray films which are done on the same day sign in the pulmonary function studies in addition to the regular studies such as dr paul did there was no exercise portion which he also did not have evidence of any dust related long disease he had no evidence of c o d d no evidence of chronic bronchitis no evidence of emphysema and no evidence of brockville reactivity he did anything wrong would lead doctor tooter to diagnose in the lung condition in my opinion that's by itself that testimony is enough to establish that the commission decision in this case is not against the manifest way the evidence there's nothing to say there was anything wrong with that testimony of dr tutor now counsel has mentioned this part about breathing treatment what dr tutor said was initially there was that the claimant was not taking any breathing medications on a regular basis because what this guy told him was that he had taken advair in the past but that the problem really had gone away and i don't think i got this out but back to her indicated he was not under any actual treatment actual treatment for a breathing problem similar to that testimony he was not taking any medication on a regular basis he's not really under any care he does have i don't i don't think the treatment makes any difference rocco it was addressed by my opponent though it isn't it isn't the commission's decision so i'm time address i don't think it matters as i said at the beginning i think the most important thing here is what dr tudor had to say found yes they did and they're entitled to find in my opinion because they're the trier of fact here my opinion is he's he's board certified as i said before an internal medicine of toners disease based on that i think it they're finding that it's entitle them more weight is more than justified the testimony here is that his breathing problems he talks about being out of breath talk about being short of breath he's throwing it all and i think it's splitting hairs to say the way he was just talking about breathing problems and that doesn't necessarily mean short of shortness of breath he he says he used all phrases and that's fine and it's just that's the way he was talking but it all refers back to the same tutor said he was wrong he said he was taking the medicine to a different kind of medicine now maybe splitting hairs i think as treatment also and i don't think this makes any difference to whether you can choose dr who you're not but he happened to be the only doctor in the common understanding for almost twenty years going back to when he was in the in the mines and that's a very important point when he was in the mines dr sidwell in two thousand five hundred function tests that were very bad and those were relied on by d white and he referred to them he said he remembered those and then he was asked his deposition well ok they got better at dr paul's exam and they got better at dr tutors exam but of course they did he was working every day as an underground coal miner  tutor says no because on the day he took his examination the p s teacher norm well if you're a doctor and you find i'm a p f t's what are you going to use to base your your decision got disease and he didn't have the records so i you know i'm and you know the wagon said he was there after he saw dr tudor he was admitted close to death all the more hospital on december second two thousand and twelve and the admission diagnosis was caught the discharge and exposure to call mind dust for a long time he was then given these medical medications a simple chord and prednisolone this is less than a year after he saw dr two so i mean did we talk about chain of causation chain of events there's no question he was treated at that time there's no question to it it was wrong but he was receiving really medications he was still taking those those medications went back to their son and then he started treating again and he was bad again all i can say about history doctor t entirety of this medical record the decision of the commission is wrong going back and looking for sharpness of breath as the basis of their decision to decide he had no disease that was wrong if it had gone and looked for all his breathing nine am wednesday morning