question has more than one part the first question yes whether the occupation is easily a positive factor or did it hasten the death that requires two other terminations did he have a pulmonary disease and was disease cause all agreed with that but the fact is that not everybody who has aspiration pneumonia dies from it and so the question becomes why did mr quick guy from this aspiration pneumonia and the answer is that his lungs were so to suffer from a number of medical conditions that in a totally unrelated that you see that you need and then doctor but one comes along and provides an opinion that initially obviously is supportive to your position but then  involved in that either but that's not the way this work there's no evidence to that that the arbitrator in my opinion used the wrong standard and the facts would support her stand but not the standard under the act the and he said well i found a reference to new macone post by dr van dam day the prior treater when i read the chart if you go back to my initial interview with john there may have been a mention about it but i never diagnosed it and then he said why he didn't made that diagnosis lives a lie and i didn't treat him after he was dead for like that that makes average lawyers have better than average cases dr mcclintock said that if a board certified pathologist perform osis made mr quinn more susceptible to the pneumonia and made it more difficult to recover he would agree with that he agreed with dr good then he said that most aspirations are multifactorial and he gave a list of the possible causes one when you have an autopsy you don't need medical records you've got a tissue in fact i think any of the colleges where this solves our don't want the medical records i just want that piece of tissue because i'm going to tell you what's in that piece of tissue how it fits in with the rest of your problems and your clinical assessment you work on that so you know he didn't have a medical records there were other reasons for it but the main reason is his need why spend the money on opinion yes he did look at sixteen slides he said there was not only new macone osis but progressive massive fibrosis he testified that he put it under polarized light and saw the silica in the but only so because of the main problem which was the severely compromised lungs that that fell on top he was at the accident waiting to happen had it not been for the severe demonio since he would not expect him to die where let's go it was one of the time to do bench or probably could've been one of the things that caused him to have the aspiration pneumonia the one where but again the aspiration pneumonia is not the sole factor eight causative factor is t significant compromise lom the damage and along that matter he couldn't recover from it and his in all the windows cases this is what happens like when a guy dies of cancer yeah he's going to die of cancer but what's the term  it's pneumonia he's got chronic lung disease we prove a causative factor that way and this is very similar in that he had aspiration pneumonia it doesn't make any difference what caused it when he had it and not everybody dies from it didn't have the tools which which brings up another point here and has a way process between goodwin and celtic is that legally possible they did two different things i'm searching for analogies and analogy i don't know that i can but goodwin looked at no medical records he looked at the tissue which is what counts selby didn't look at any to shoot he looked at medical records so they could both be greatly credible but but you can't compare them say with him and therefore i choose history of smoke now on that report as you may have seen i've always say that they can't rule out a carcinoma because it's just a shadow you have to have a biopsy to figure that out better well written well reason well thought out decisions i've seen it all the whole time the arbitrator did an excellent job going through all the evidence the sequence of evidence and what happened and what didn't happen limited very quick autopsy and unusual circumstances in a funeral home all this was discussed by dr sophy and his testimony and he wrote her thirty test i probably was one hundred percent agree with you i'd tard to argue with a path out of your side but i know a little bit more about it now and i don't necessarily agree with that in every state and every circumstance i would say have a bigger stronger evidence of a problem in this case for the petitioner is live daily for years and there's not really any evidence in this record of breathing problems or coworkers sometimes patients will even tell the doctor i'm a coal mine at thirty years i got black or white but i have an odd we don't know what is that in a medical record sure because that's what action it doesn't mean much but that's how things like that this you know not really chance are you getting medical records reviewed by your specialist and the doctor you're going to rely on but he writes the report nowhere in that report thirty one pages one time only in a letter in response to a letter from the attorney in february march two thousand and five so when he testified he did not get that passed up and i think i've been here the opinion i have yet to do it because nobody provided me that opinion before the have cost for aggravated the aspiration pneumonia dr mcclintock testimony on that single point of cause of death you know he knew about the girl he knew about these other medical and he said that's what i remember about that afternoon and about what possible causes were but it seems to me that if you really want to know the cause of it if you really if you're the petitioner areas get all the medical you can get it to i even question dr goodwin about that i said well when i knew he didn't have the records he had said in a few questions earlier you know i haven't seen records that i asked him a couple of points about the records and something like that how many times do you have to be told what part of my hands are did you not get i didn't have the records i asked a question because i was just wanted him to reaffirm he didn't have the records that's my whole point in that eighty three eighty four life that was there for a long time if he had it but that yourself he explained are right you got to be a little bit careful with just assuming that we have a  just something i think and in other cases does one thing well he looks the entire picture of the patient he looks at the records he looks at his exam he looks at different actuaries or different periods of time different commentary function studies he doesn't just say you know what i took and actually i read it as being negative so much that it's not much of an argument but when he's presented with a case such as he goes through everything he looks at the records i even sent him  wash i mean if dr mcclintock was seesawing here and you think you know it could've been there you know could been that he's focusing on what was causing the the causes because i mean times are we up here in the regular minors claim and the principal evidence is actually evidence not only that ok i'm not embarrassed of myself but i think it's this court that set that x ray evidence by its own copperheads absolutely not he he looks at everything and the fact that goodwin was denied the medical records is telling here and the opportunity did a very good job explaining why mcclinto and selby contradict dr goodwin and she didn't even better job when she at the end explains why and says i find no medical basis for dr good which opinion concerning the cause of  acknowledge the pathological evidence showed the macone osis but he said that pathological evidence does not necessarily equate to an airman disability during life and he said  testimony that i looked at size therefore he has it and saudis are saying hey wait a minute we don't throw out everything else in the back water and this time his opinion we have twenty thirty years of history and medical third legal air i believe that was the arbitrator's conclusion there is no indication in any of the medical evidence that mr quick ever complained ever was treated for any employment rate of woman or condition will be can be more wrong than them there can't be records show entries of bronchitis fourteen times hospitalization for pneumonia four times and that's not including the terminal hospitalization c e o p t three times the asthma three times as manic bronchitis two times now black lung was mentioned three times it's not right wendy commission said it that wasn't there but what's really not right is the commission indicating that there's no possible relation of these things to his work because we all know that fi funeral director i want to autopsy the funeral director calls out a good i did i didn't know dr bill and just time and he says i want an autopsy a doctor has can't do it i'm a forensic pathologist and i have to have that order from a lawyer so the funeral director