aware it is the circuit court room usually substituted its judgment for that of the commission it's the commission's role to determine facts and drive reasonable inferences from that evidence presented over the employer robberies and it's our position that the commission was cracked in finding that it's no accident occurred on february ninth of two thousand and seven bas injury occurred at that time she did not mention any work injury concerning her life shoulder i'm she did talk about where she talks about the fact that she was going to be retiring and this money if february and that she that first of all i think the commission focused in on the fact that if she had truly sustained an injury i'm february ninth she would have reported it a week later she would have waited a month replace her primary care physician this is the that it was an accident that occurred on february seventh there's also the testimony of the h representative from walgreens whose testimony indicated that she was that the accident was reported sometime in february but she never everybody ninth was the day that she was injured the day that she reported her injury to her credibility wimpy joining to question the way it is but the fact that she's saying she can't remember she is telling one doctor that the injury occurred on one day she's if she was one calendar a day of the new year she was entitled to twenty five days off those twenty five days consisted of the kitchen personal sectors she was the one danger anyway so she was entitled to twenty five days off by returned to work by march fifth monday she tried but she couldn't feel right and that's when she took herself off of work that's when she called two days later and told dr hostile there that she sustained a work injury back in we have doctor hot sellers records for ninety nine and i think part of the record all the way to the injury it doesn't exist those complaints don't exist and in fact when responding briefed this they went backwards to point out all the aches and complaints that petitioner made over the past five six n the cervical condition possibly related and again dr should both oh well it's not it's not just a shoulder injury i guess would be the response you get that this was a cervical condition that was causing pain in her shoulder and this this discussion it's been a red herring for some time regarding the days off that you took from january into february prior to the state of the injury if you actually look at dr oz those records in january before the da what case fifteen sec record answer yes and you're familiar with the incident reports that were put out as a result that report just did miss miller miss any time from work while we were reporting of the injury yes that would have been the period of time that she missed several days whether i decision and i don't want to say it was overlooked it was but if there was an overlooked or was arbitrarily rejected there's no reason that down to see groups testimony she testifies at length about her knowledge of petitioners work out claim or her look at his records he has a very nicely laid out subjective history portion in all of his records and he documents what the conversations are out you would think that if she had sustained an injury that's the type of work because she had to call the h m representative for the six days and for the for the leave of absence but there is nothing in the record saying what exactly she sayd she was being taken off  work for but again i think that the main reason the commission found that the difference in our sustained accident was because of that medical record and so even if she reports it to the supervisor  know i don't know about that because if if she went to the doctor she would tell the doctor what was wrong she didn't say if she had an injury she would have told the doctor about it well there is an e u saying seemingly the commission while issue of notice proper notice isn't at issue because regardless it was given within forty five days it was reported that some time the commission reversed that were traitors decision because of credibility issues multiple credibility issues found throughout the record and as you know in order for the decision to be found against the manifest weight of that i've been saying as to be a substantial