medical experts in this case including the respondents own with big certain agree that there could be only one cause mr weaver's injury and that one cause is a traumatic event the only one traumatic event in the records within the evidence is that mr weaver reported injury on may ninth two thousand and ten there's no one of the events records to in there in the evidence and that you this court reviews a lot of manifest weight cases and this one is extraordinary this is not a case about competing experts nor is it a case where there is competing testimony of the witnesses regarding material facts of the time matter and nature of the injury this is a case about medical causation and the undisputed testimony of the petitioner regarding the a medical experts and bet by and large the petitioner's testimony regarding the time manner and place of the accident is under scrutiny and that the commission's failure to review the evidence in its entirety and means the decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence it really boiled down to i mean the commission adopted the arbitrators findings the arbitrator did not find  joseph's and his his report of the injury and his testimony but she dismisses this discrepancy given the fact given mr weaver's limited intellectual abilities examination asked for clarification at that point and it was it was it was mentioned that he took the she was when he returned home and noticed swallowing and the question became whether he there's trying to stay there in the brief that the testimony of the swelling is contradictory but there's no evidence that anyone suggested anyone requested information or asked him a question about the swelling on on may eighth prior to weaver was asked about swelling prior to his fall on may ninth was when he was testifying contradicts the testimony of both the orthopedic surgeons that he did not feel pain in fact when at st joseph's when he actually has an evaluation of a muscular skeletal one of the most severe in the church the other the other is that the trio you know indicates that he stepped on something and rolled as ankle while the no later at the must see a history given by the muscular skeletal examination is that he was merely walking felt a pop and thought that is consistent with his testimony that is consistent with what he told dr tell us it's consistent with what he told dr kudos so there are no inconsistency is with regard to that testimony we believe that there's only one cause for mr weaver's accident and that was the work related accident on may eighth two thousand and ten we believe that it was clear that it was a rose out in the course of his employment and we asked that this court case specifically mr weaver's credibility and there's various the cumulative effect of the various points mentioned in the commission's decision arbitrator's decision you know it's understandable and we see in a lot of cases where the commission says well the official story doesn't match up with what he told medical providers and things like that yes but this this is a person with a sixty eight i q reading comprehension at the second grade level right i mean to what extent do we expect someone with that kind of mental capacity to be able to consistently i when she when she when she addressed the medical records it's the spine of everything else in the position that i mean we're not talking about when someone gets hurt you don't have to have a great level of  something that and if you look at the records they're very specific about what he said so they were it wasn't some big narrative he took when he testified in court i was at the trial and he was very if you read the record there was no way he could communicate fine there was no issue we had to extremely high i q or level intelligence to tell somebody if you were hurt less than an hour ago exactly what happened and so that so i think that was taken into account but that was just one one of the medical records was just one item that the arbitrator commission took into account and so i don't i don't think that that it's not like you could not communicate at all it's your question so there are a lot of when you look at these cases there's the other issues that i'd like to go through here as to his credibility is first of all as he ledges he injured himself after starting work at five pm on saturday may eighth he was working he alleges he was working on some softball fields and twisted his ankle and his work he was also testified that he was aware that work in trees had to be reported immediately he did not report them to any of his coworkers but he did not report it to a supervisor he worked till well th at he claims he worked a full day and a thirty to three o'clock whereas the supervisor said no it was eight thirty but even if you work in additional two or three three o'clock three thirty he still didn't report it to anybody and so  he didn't then he went home and there's the testimony that went back and when asked when he found out he had this bruising or discolored bruising it is a goal when he got home whether it was at three o'clock or five o'clock or eight o'clock or whenever it was his that was a nother inconsistency in his his reporting but the point is he didn't report his his injury when he got home when he found out that he had a problem with his ankle  exactly where it went and when he might be reported when he went once he wanted his entry and so he doesn't report it the morning that he wakes up he goes then he goes to his brother's house the first time he reports that injury is after he goes to the hospital and they verify a fracture in his ankle and he tells the supervisor at that point in time or i think i heard it you know the day before but i woke up this morning and my ankle was fine so there is a country  says there is testimony from himself as documented by his supervisor in his employment file in testimony that when he told him how we knew this he offered himself in the morning he woke up in his ankle was fine wasn't until he went to his brother's house to help him cut his lawn is that when he noticed it was a problem so again that's the reason all these chima to the fact of all these inconsistency is one of which is the medical records and his other statements undermine his credibility doesn't make any sense compared to what other person and i mean i get back to you know it's going to sixty eight i q right i mean it doesn't make any sense to you right you wouldn't then make sure to get it right don't we have to put this but i think the record is consistent with that so it what what what i would respond that scare the elisions position is what really happened is he went on may ninth his brother's house and that was cutting his lawn and most likely was in elton and his brothers in elgin and then but if you look at the medical records in the house for the record he doesn't show up to the hospital till eleven thirty this it take two to three hours to dry from elgin so there's some inconsistency even with if you just look at the objective timing of the injury as he testified  es far as the medical testimony dr g what the arbitrator relied on was doctor to tell us to treat orthopedic physician which he said was he didn't say that it he no i mean more probably true the not that he injured his ankle and fractured on may eighth and it was him unstable on may ninth and that's when it all made up i said back as a match i won't go through in that brief as i stated in the brief but what he said was it would be and it's possible but highly unlikely is what he said that hypotheticals and his bottom like conclusion was that the the actual injury of the ankle fracture could i make night not be ten so based on all of those i think that again this is a manifest weight of the evidence it's unfortunate  weaver's perspective and he like to take you know take into account his you know his limited intellectual ability but i think still would he have the capacity as he testified to to communicate discoloration and swelling may not have been unusual to him an me eight when he left and make that make a big issue there sign makes a big issue of him not reporting him he he will never state he's never stated that he he th he reported on that day he stated that he didn't know that he was injured on that day so to take him in the context as the official or i believe that is is important because he did not have the knowledge to report this until the which i feel is in bill it is significant he states that in his testimony furthermore when given the hypotheticals about continue walking on the fractured ankle it tells actually states is completely conceivable because the ankle would have the it was stable until it was no longer stable and it also plays into dr corder statement that this this accident this injury was his review of the statement of the petitioner in the initial patient questionnaire that he was not surprised and that's in the transcript