and i tried this case i took the deposition so i was gently where the facts of the case and as i began that review the the line from monny python came to me i spent the time going through the file and after i completed that another line occurred to me and that was what a long strange trip  but i think in this case and all over the tread lightly that there's one final thing that comes to mind and that is where do we begin with this case take that out now you still have to face in regard to that issue about manifest weight it's interesting given our discussions in the other cases we've had here that this case actually has of all the cases we have where we talk about half ology it being the gold standard my ass it was a wedge biopsy that right was examined under the microscope and that wedge biopsy was performed at this gentleman's right lower low and so we're tying down to the bind area in june of two thousand and eight this gentleman slask work was september of two thousand and eight so we're talking three decision of the conclusion of the arbitrator on whether there was new macone osis or not on that day was correct and for that reason as you point out page and half of that that's from the sun i i but go ahead you are absolutely correct in everything you said and when i noticed it myself was when i reviewed for this know i and i and i like commissioner throughout but when he was feeling his oats but i cannot i do not see from the facts in this case how it's interesting too and actually justice hof and i thought that you might pick up on this because you like to delve into the facts and the statute you've always done that exposing and specifically if you drop down to where i've been dennett if that begins if a minor the statute reads if a minor or who is suffering gentleman wasn't a minor for america  it was a security guard so what do we do it because it says a minor and if you look back up in that section it talks about an employee i'm not sure how how that plays here but if you read this literally in the facts of this case if this gentleman has been in the county of says isn't the presumption that it relates back to the company  he was last exposed that he has the occupational disease claim upon regardless of the length of time of such last exposure so if the legislature tended to use the word minor i suppose they would of but we get i can understand your argument employees you see this is any occupational disease it's not truly black one up right or  that what they've done here i think rather intentionally has created a presumption for someone who's money he was a minor he was exposed to more than ten years as a coal miner that's all the evidence so there's a presumption here that whatever disease he has hiv he hennessy it relates to that  and then he turns around and said he never seen capacity anyway so oh i really had let me ask you this because i think we're sort of getting to the heart of the issue here on on i read this yet you literally and i and i presume that they meant to say what they said that and he says  he employer liable for not just by the statute but by the case thomas left for which i argued here and it went to the supreme court it was decided it's settled everything about this case  actually exposed to cold us on his last day of work and whether that exposure he had any was medically significant are not determinative of the employer's liability that was the end decision happen and interestingly enough this case is a good example of the court setting guide rails letting the parties know in the future what counts and has left her decision except for the fact of arguing it again today  you have to look i believe that the case the decision of the commission as a whole and exposure is the predicate to the disease so if you're ruling on this case and you think there was no exposure then you can say well if there was no disease from that exposure and it it gives everyone a mistress or there was no disease from that exposure is entirely different than there was no disease and all in any of the diagnostics but well first of all with coworkers marconi also the only the only data that would make any difference would be the x ray  w so there were two diseases here and and again i think you have to take the commission decision as a whole what was just what was in the commission's mind they'd already dismissed the case no exposure when they when they should be and the commission got it wrong and and i say to you if a commission thinks there was no exposure how do you expect them to find disease i don't know if it doesn't disease come first exposure comes second i mean there's no reason to even talk about exposure if you don't have a disease i don't i don't think it comes and i think that exposure comes first and then disease why i mean you know if the man does not h freeman cole and it was mr boat rock and it was mr word says the other jack and that's the case they were ruling off so in that case they found there was no exposure once you find that and that your first that there could take a little bit more time on me on the left or decision and the exposure this is one of the one of the rules hurtful parties sometimes unhelpful or to sometime over the course of my career i've probably at least one hundred cases where the coal miner worked for decades and now i'm on i believe clearly have a number of diseases related to that but then they weren't sure they wanted to quit and they went to work in kentucky red day or pennsylvania for a day or even worse yet they went there took a tete to take a test to drive the equipment to prove the employer they could do it and i had to tell them you're out because however short you were exposed in pennsylvania a remedy there and not so so this is one of those cases where is it fair and i say under the law yes because it told us what to do it brought us consistenc and that is what fairness is i believe in the law as i come up here and as the guy comes into my office so i've got to do if i know what the rules are i can be a good liar and this provided this rules and i i think that so you will decide you will tell me what is right but i think you look at that case in its entirety and that that's the decision that should be arrived at so walk with that in mind and nor you there were there what means an impairment or partial impairment temporary or permanent in the function of the body or any of the members of the body you were there the event of becoming disabled from earning full wages at the work in which the employee was engaged when the last exposed to the hazard of the occupational dizzy term hasard is there dr sure testified in regard to the dates that this gentleman worked on september twenty two september twenty three two thousand and eight and i'm now welding for my son that i choose the fairly accurate those two days of work with not have any medical significance for him from home unary stan it's my position that he was not exposed to the hazard of disease on those two day but if he received his final check in the mail from the mouth he stuck his check in there at the mine sealed it up and mailed it and he to hasard disease the legislature's talking about