reveals no man big you especially equivocal testimony whether such an event is against the manifest weight of the evidence that bears repeating it was the case in chief witness of mr jack and biased were the commission reverses the arbitrators determination and says that testimony was the quizzical as the basis for completely flipping the ar that lasts a page just a couple questions for you was the question you stated that you worked for a level title for approximately twenty years answer yes when did your employment and with them answer i don't know that sounds equivocal job i did for them was i think i didn't go to war we had rumor chabi after the d s w story question you would have ended approximately two thousand and eleven answer yes in fact i think it was actually jimmy where i worked up until june wary and then in february then i was laid off question you were laid off from the level tile in february of two thousand and eleven  february i was laid off and then he goes on to say i'm trying to think but the day's work yet because i read from the hernia surgery in february of this year it isn't clear almost a is so they look at these facts differently and they say this you know this this testimony by care or some cross examination makes no sense in the context of all the other evidence in the case that's what they said it you know emphasized the fifth did prior to mark the thirty first he believed the performers work effectively without complaint treatment that's in the record that supporters of the commission did and we don't have to rely on the reasons given by the commission popped and my witnesses hears terrorist and terrorist parents and says the same thing in the case in chief and then keris says in cross examination you're right i stopped working for this company  not there there's nothing else on the record besides his testimony is testimony which is huge and it was to the point that i was trying to make sure justice hoffman was a little bit overly passionate which was our duty to resent the cherub that same day we also have the petitioner's testimony that he reported to his boss mr obama that day so of course if it didn't happen that day then when mr romano had done and just this is this is a side issue with respect to whether or not they call him in that whether that should be construed against them but what i would just point out is that they could have called him to say this man did not work on that day and they did not and he testified i reported this to the owner of the company on the day it happened that's significant so we not only have a history we not only have the report to his employer on the day of the incident but then we also have the injective medical findings at the hospital right after the injury and a week later which show that there was an acute trauma to the knee all of those things together i believe the commission can fin and i think that's what the commission had a problem with when it when it read arbitrator cinnamon's decision she said essentially we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater carer's scenes you know to say that he wasn't there therefore the petitioner at the entire record and determine whether or not there's enough evidence to support the decision of the commission i say there is that aside i did try the case and i counsel didn't didn't have the privilege to be there direct and then his testimony on cross that he knew the incident happened he didn't know when it happened and i don't think any questions i could have asked or anyone else could have asked when really mean that much clearer in his direct in the case in chief the question was yes the page forty six of the record question who were you working with answer jill carroll's records indicate he was point he was making a very specific acknowledgment of the men that was next to him and it turns out i submit to you that the record will against the manifest weight does not support that position and therefore the record on its whole as f