to causal connection you probably try to resolve those conflicts by making credibility terminations in favor of the employer out the commission resolve those conflicts by making those credibility terminations and flavor of the  opinion argued deal which is what is the effect of an arbitrator's decision when the commission decides to reverse those credibility terminations that they make you know we agree the commission also has the perspective of being able to review testimony dispassionately steve exactly what was asked what was the answer to this is always to be able to the arbitrator but nonetheless the law says they have to commission has to kno nice specifically say that these are the reasons why we're making determinations that are contrary to the officers decision no question they do analyze the testimony pointing out the strengths and weaknesses the commission's decision was against the manifest weight it simply concluded because it could not find specific credibility findings within the commission's decision that it was erroneous as a matter of law that is correct ok can i i'm trying to determine is what is it that the circuit court is saying is missing from the commission's decision here and it seems that there's a blurring of the lines between a credibility well i should say credibility when it is attached to a witness takes into account any number of things and the trier back is often finds in the superior position of the judge credibility of a witness from the bench were an expectation that after the commission says i find this person more credible there has to be an explanation because of an explanation as to the factual basis for that terminations that was my impression at the time that the case was argued and to the extent it is explained here well you know if you look at the dick the dictionary definition of credibility it's the quality or our inspiring belief that definition of probable is offering reasonable grounds for being believed if an opinion is found the evidence persuasive and the reasons why it went to the evidence to be persuasive i'm just trying to get a handle on what is meant by credibility determinations when it comes to opinions as opposed to position was as to the drastic shift of the decision and and and where an explanation for a determination appeared should should appear in a decision of the commission i don't think it really was basis to explain determinations but if for some reason that the court does not agree we had asked for review and at the bench and that was denied which i think would be the proper remedy in these circumstances  like telling you to bring your own that is very much like that and most of the question i think that speaks my case i think you pace including the last hour of the day since she looks fine she has no complaints they're talking about one thing to do in the upcoming three day holiday weekend i mean that is not consistent well  indeed is based on fact outside of the record he didn't have any of the medical records from before and he says his opinion is speculation that takes outside of the realm of an opinion that the commission can prior m r i he said that wasn't one in fact there was one show that you already had these conditions he didn't see doctor to tory's records which showed that she was on the same medication were you surprised in the sun give a deposition  references the m r finding yes on cross examination i show it to him because normal can vary he doesn't think there is one of scholem that in fact there is and he says yes the conditions worse now seven years later but it's there it's already there she has the psychiatric and she believes she never had this before the records show she had to continuously really really sure the quotation seems to be and she does have some little bit pain before but the fear is that she never stopped working before he asked which is also testified to contradicted by the record could show she didn't get taken off work for low back she her current condition of bill being that she claimed she can't work that was caused by this cynical event there in the commission of the ad the commission bought it even though she had been working continuously without a mistake of work since the accident no doctor with all the doctors who saw her said she could work except for doctor son who sees her and says after she's voluntarily take yourself out of work that she can't do the work that she's been doing for five months again he does this without the benefit of any of the work records any of the medical records anything and more important to me is this clip of  sufficient basis we don't use them here and so it should not be given the way it was given by the exact is pure speculation and on cross examination he pretty much admits that that he doesn't know what she could do before what she have an opinion rest and speculation conjecture it just isn't a basis for right now well that would be the basis for the opinions that were proposed but as to the credibility findings this getting back to that again that  found its way into the circuit boards or was that argue did you advance that the commission did not make specific credibility findings we argued that the commission made conclusions w basis it assumed an accent was different than the one that was asked by two and when i pressed him on it he used an adopted word speculation speculation as we know means it's not an acceptable arbitrators that looks like you do you want to stipulate that that's you do you want to take the stand and we're bottle no he doesn't want to do i think that's a hell of an admission by omission by refusing to take the stand to weekend during which time emotion under active care for her back she doesn't see a doctor she doesn't do anything she's got pain that she says is equal to childbirth and does nothing but school tuesday morning tuesday morning et she had a prior history it said and it commission's decision reviews the prior medical history records and saying look it's either remote in the past episodic and certainly the stuff that was leading up to the accident eight involved a different part of by the equivalent of a child well d the testimony is the at the end at that moment did it happen and this is a one unwitnessed accident she said my pain was ten out of ten she does not say in the testimony that my my from the moment it happened until the moment i went back to work on tuesday she said when it happened i was in terrible pain we have this video of an individual leaving and it's an equivocal statement regarding the the commission did except that the commission had ample basis to believe her testimony that she was injured she repeatedly described how the accident happened and we think the commission properly gave her made