this out on the line of duty just glued penchant for an alleged condition that could have been resolved by safe reasonable treatment that was recommended by which will physicians in this matter that treatment also offer a reasonable prospect of relief suffered from that disorder nor was disabled any such condition however rather than denying miss our benefits pension were granted miss out on the line of duty disability pension based on the psychological disability but as i stated sh denied having multiple times and she has specifically refused treatment the city of fury retains newshounds not physically or psychologically disabled from returning her to her employment additionally we will ledge that any disabling condition is not caused by the july accident however even if this court finds sufficient evidence of the work related psychological condition claimed by the pension board miss allen is not criminals permanently disabled under the pension bill and this issue should be reviewed under th the board's decision makes no reference to section four days one of the statutory definition of permanent disability or the common law definition of the phrase the decision also fails to make any finally regarding the availability of medical treatment  safety or reason will miss the venue available medical treatment or whether any available medical treatment presented a reasonable profit or when these are missions highlight the words either as a matter of law at the board correctly quotes of those specific doctors relating to the bill will you that treatment it's reasonable safe nature and the fact that miss allen had a prospect of recovery should she pursue that th the existence of her physical and mental disability that that physical or mental disability has rendered her disabled and that it was a result of an active duty the record before the score stablish is this on has not and cannot lack of symptoms at the time of the alleged incident negate her later claim of injury this progression of symptoms is also inconsistent with any concussion or neurologic this degree or injury and that the board fails to address these going to medical record issues or explain how these records are consistent with the ultimate findings in this matter the board further fails to reference explain or present argument regarding mr jones highly questionable and unsubstantiated assertion that she damaged her fire home and as a result of the fall at the time of the pension hearing miss allen testified that she easters fell backwards saw her feet fly out from under her under her landed on her back and that's all that you remember this is years after the initial accident however the medical records provide detail analysis and depiction of the accident that she is playing those records indicate that she slipped backwards as she said fits one for over she waited on her scotter packed the air packed the firefighters where in the back and then she slid down approximately eight pence there's these are her own words it's very descriptive she also indicates that her right arm flew out from under her and made contact with one of the rings causing a logic injury to whatsoever to a significant dent in the front of her home now that she says that this purported lee this dent proves that she's a pain in nature i feel like that testimony be highly questionable circumstances in her a complete review of the sounds medical records injury reports and the medical reports in this manner support the conclusion that she did not sustain a concussion any type of neurological injury for student or injury or psychological injury just briefly i would like to point out a few other inconsistency with the pension board's decision and the representation of some of the doctors dr glance upon reselling was disabled and unable to fulfill her work duties i love her he gave his opinion on october  a course of test at the fire training center he indicated that she had no difficulty performing the test that he asked her to view he was told that if he found her to be disabled he would need to  before this court the pension board's decision should be reversed by this court regardless of the standard review of review applied on appeal the facts and law relevant to this case establish misselling feel to me her burden of proving she's entitle to a line of duty disability pension under the represent the firefighters pension fund in the city your first thing i'd like to know is it's important to the nature of the injury fears there's no question that firefighter allen captain allen fell down the stairs and active fires while cooling fire holes that's something that wasn't brought up during the city's argument that she was injured during an active fire performing to be as a firefighter we certainly disagree on the standard of review to be applied in this matter as you heard from the city they need doctor the court there applied math as one of the standard moreover in looking at the rise and case which is a case from this district that deals with the treatment available to disability act and they specifically physical or mental disability that can be expected to result in death not at issue here or this lasted for a continuous period of not less than twelve months for can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months if you look at the words several of the doctor's orders all say she has suffered from this disability for a period of one within twelve months regardless of whether or not she needs to avail himself of additional treatment at the time the hearing was held and for the pension board in this matter had satisfied the statutory definition of permanent disability because her disability had lasted for a period of greater than twelve months with the capacity is asking you to do is essentially reweigh the evidence that was heard for the pension or it was a balloonist record record that attribute her psychological disability to the fire response incident that's at issue happened in this case and furthermore i was just the case was that is that any evidence in the record that supports the board's decision is sufficient to affirm the worst decision and there is plenty of evidence in the record that the applicant is disabled from the somatic disorder so whether she not she is required to reveal herself treatment again the statutory definition says it has to be conditional asked for more than twelve miles she's met that burden in this manner whoever the burden i would suggest is higher than whether or not the treatment is safe and effective and may have helped again going to the case which is from this district two thousand and seven to the court this court in that case said absolute proof that the firefighter would have fully recovered if he had all recommended treatment his refusal does not justif this is a very new disorder there's not a lot of research on it we aren't clear how much treatment would help treatment may help but there is other are pins in the record that suggest that it does not allow her to return to form und and the thing i would like to leave you from which is the case is that in that case the court found that the board the pension board had heard no evidence that the refusal to see physical therapy in that case was  shoulder injury was the sole cause of continuing disability so in this case there is no evidence that she would have fully recovered had she saw the treatment and there was no evidence that her continued disability counsel has made and i have lost many times on those which is that it does not matter how the board explains their decision it does not matter if they articulate everything correctly what matters is that there is enough evidence to support the record but she does have some personality traits she's a little bit more anxious she's a little bit more depressed than maybe a regular subset of the population and in that case she may be more likely to get it but she doesn't have it she believes that everyone is out to get her she thinks no one believes her and she substantially feels these issues to be real they are real to her that is part of this disorder and so when you're talking about all these different things  not they're going to be called back especially to do this for a living and so he could easily quote i'm sure he's going to just not answer that question he put his name on that line he checked that she was disabled and he came to justify  because he genuinely believes her to be disabled more than set more when she can get better he believes she cannot do the job she did before and we would not be having this conversation if she was diagnosed at the  the symptoms they are affecting her they affect her ability your job and we're not talking about a job in which she's whining people or we're talking about a job in which she isn't hired to go and put her life on the line and the wives of others in the mine her coworkers including the general public and off she she is a captive she didn't get that job by being weak she didn't get that job by being extremely agencies she might have been high strung again with unsupported the record the thing is with regards to her our condition treatment possible treatment there is possible treatment and most of the doctors that they thought she would improve but that's not the question interests everyone the arguments raised by opposing counsel st were guarding the period of twelve months and the statutory standard in that regard i think it would be on equitable to state that individual should be granted a line of duty disability pension for a condition that is left over twelve months if that adult can refused treatment that is reasonable necessary safe and offers a reasonable prospect of believe so i would disagree with councils are reading an interpretation in the pension board interpretation of that particular section of the pension board here i think it it does not contemplate that the individual would be a lot of to democracy treatment during that folk month period secondly i would indicate that mrs allen has denied having those conditions she refused treatment at the pension hearing she specifically said counseling had been offered throughout the course of her treatment i would which did not need to be found a page fo i appreciate that the rd point i'd like to make is that the doctors that have been discussed in this case you know this clearly disagreement between the pension board and opposing counsel for miss allen was bonesteel and myself as opinion was referenced by the pension board counsel i would just like to note that his opinion as i stated in pages eleven and twelve my brief him as dr didn't woody dark and didn't in dr broke clearly stated that  won't cooperate with treatment a return to full under strict a duty is a reasonable prognosis that meets the standard under it he also stated that she had not received any psychiatric or psychological treatment and that needed to be done with  there was a statement regarding there being no more lingering in this case by miss out however dr nagual and dr kessler specifically discussed within the documentary reports that there were substantial evidence of the lingering