decision though isn't it was that they're finding that the injury that caused the disability that took place in march as opposed to the case where a twenty fourth incident and that that was the basis for their to tell me that it was that the  correct and i believe under johnson in the other patients that we study and he's only twenty one of our brief that she was as shit commander operating in her capacity to monitor they've listened to all this conflicting evidence and made a finding that she wasn't injured at that moment how do we go against giving our standard review h find that that decision was against the manifest we didn't ever win no off none of the officers agreed with their the videotape and what it was on her side she has the reports of the doctors which is basically see her injure her self doesn't mean that the injury didn't occur i grieve agri if there's evidence to support it either way my point is here the board made a fine how do we get to the point where  you you have to reach the opposite conclusion based upon what the evidence shows the fat in and one of the and i think what's more important here is they playing in the of firefighters pension board case and that case and very similar to what we have here we have a situation where the board firings the pension applicant in that case lambert not credible and because they found him not credible they then discounted in this regard all of their own physician statements and each position here determined that she was injured on the twenty fourth of january on act yes let me ask you  this other question what is the standard of review is this clearly erroneous in this case because we have an administrative decision and we're applying the statutes to a given set of facts were or are we looking at this for the manifest weight performing and is a question of law right so whether it's in the line of duty i suppose you could say it's a question of off but when you're when you're applying facts to a particular statute i think y drug and it's all consistent with her testimony and i don't believe the video is it's clear the first one you can see snow and ice i'm doing this right to the streets it's january twenty fourth it's not inconceivable that there could have been a patch of ice were she stepped out none of that with the police officer said in their late reports was well we did see ice snow on the street but no fourth she had injuries to her injury you know suffered to that the right foot and the right meet also i just want to comment on the board's position before this  only reference to the march incident at all they never say she was injured in march not jack and i believe that you know there's no  that were part of her job as a sergeant and that in performing to the senses that this sift it is similar to put in a parking ticket on a car and that that's not a line of duty activity of course she  fact that she should shift supervisor and there's a wing of a person that they're prey poor rest and she's going there to assist in that arrest or supervise the situation the it that once again capacity she is acting he is being shift supervisor to going to the scene of the arrest and that's enough whether he's in in custody or not doesn't make a difference in my opinion we look at johnson you know that when this guy is in custody and she approaches them that he doesn't break free ice breakers are fighting the police officers i you know rest situations are highly volatile situations are things i agree and when you look at it at johnson versus the retirement or the seminal face on this whole issue officer johnson was downtown somewhere in a civilian asked me question or help to him or something for assistance as the medical evidence into the record the board did not disregard the medical records as of me as related to work pertain to the cause of the disability the second issue the board hit site is it started mahoney become disabled as evidence of medical injury off with we could never rely on a videotape to interpret whether or not there was a medical injury as a result that is not something i don't even think the board could do well the only way that a court can consider whether there has been an injury this is interesting is based upon testimony of an expert that being a medical doctor and in this case three medical doctors testified that she injured herself on the top they were of the opinion that she injuries self i'm january twenty fourth oh night and that that injury well that that was that was it i don't know how we can go from that reject that and say the videotape s that it's a medical question whether or not there's a disability and that's the case we said in our brief second district a poet or johnson johnson is very clear johnson says that it's up for the doctors to decide whether or not they're doing there is a disability i think that's a medical question i circumstances whether or not it's covered it's part of a cover to act in other words whether it's a line of duty disability and that's where the conflicting evidence well i would looking at the twenty fourth of can you it is council correct that there's a waiver of any argument that this was the result of the incident in the ladies washroom on a march date though i have to respectfully disagree with counsel of first of all the reason we're looking at january twenty fourth of two thousand nine is because that's when point of claims she injured her knee which is what how the videotape comes into play here when don't three doctors say three doctors selected by the board say that she did in fact say i think all three doctors say yes it's consistent one doctor says it's plausible but again it's not up to the doctors to determine whether or not it's part of a covered act the doctors don't know what the officers converge and they're going to arrest someone what is that line of duty there well i think based on the facts every case is different but i think if you accept the plaintiff's argument here which i've said we don't individual is not a dangerous situation i think it could be a dangerous situation i think the problem here is that it didn't happen on the video the way she testified well that's a different question that's you know you're if you want to put the active duty thing she says she she gets out of the car and her right foot lands on a piece of ice and it's slid forward or you tell me that just based on looking that this highly grainy video from some distance away looking underneath the car door which was by the way open and you with a camera that you can see that her foot did not pull is that you're telling us and that's the death of the manifest with the evidence that goes contrary to all these doctor visits and all these doctors opinions they had little video is enough that is nuff to say that's not what happened i don't i think that one piece of the video is enough i think it's the to tell me the video because the board not me to make a finding that they didn't believe she got injured the way she and there's there's an injury there's medical documentation that very day and she has multiple visits after that i mean what was all that well how she would nor it well i don't think the board ignored it i think the board listened to everything waited and then made a determination it didn't happen the way she said it did not deserve dispute that when she showed up a little company of mary that day there was something on you know what no i don't think the wrist but the more importantly is is there's an obvious injury so i mean what elsewhere in the poor to pull out this information again i think the burden is always on the applicant that's what will stay a wish to prove that they were injured as a result of an act then that had happened at the last couple of pages maybe a page and a half of the of the ports determination it starts at the bottom of the twenty three and ends at twenty capacity of exiting the squad car it not involve a special risk not merely assumed by citizens who exit cars i mean that i think it's you know we don't get out of our cars to respond to arrest no special risk the last one is morgan police officers here in chicago says i'm we sergeant i had a right police reports i'm sitting on my desk i fall out of my chair i become disabled he's his primary argument here is the board had the video and it was contrary to what her testimony was as to what happened in material respects sale counsel is citing the lambert case as supplemental applicant's credibility it wasn't a dispute about whether somebody was disabled because of all those cases the boards denied altogether rejected medical evidence somebody was disabled this board didn't do that credibility determination here is the video primarily that's not the only thing i think that's primary problem well then yes is they're saying that time looked at it once i think you can see that when her right foot goes down it actually goes to the right the board didn't see that it or she said but i guess i have a problem with the  the board took the position in this in the brief all the sudden that this injury occurred in march coming out of the bathroom right i don't think that's how the set of sun shows up in the brief that her injury was from march march twentieth come out of the bathroom and what i want to know is how did how do you get to the conclusion that her injury occurred in march when she minds up a little company of mary hospital with a swollen knee on the very day up the one that ends up capturing the sun the squatter camera she's sitting in her car the other officers get out that's how we have this issue of the big she says she immediately begins to run she doesn't she's seen walking responding but in any event i still have this question about you know one of the factors even said that video based on his repeal i mean he each want to get the feel that her disability resulted from the twenty four can't worry and said how do we how do we say that or it can simply get the medical testimony out this disabling injury that occurred they say three twenty or so jensen second district public court they haven't found one in this district yet that says that but it's that we're not rejecting the medical opinion as to the cause of disability no where in section three one one lambert case the credibility determinations were overturned were based on collateral or tangential matters and i don't think judge that anything is more important or material or relevant than an actual videotape of how the injury allegedly occurred and i don't think there's any cases that i've read in anybody's grease or found that are reported with there's an actual videotape which the board finds refutes how the applicant claims she sustained her disability so i think it's apples and oranges when you look at the rosie act and the lambert case i think those cases were decided correctly because it was tangential issues you didn't answer questions about how much money  or where you lived or things that happen in physical therapy or the most recent one the lambert case out of the second district involved the applicant's demeanor before the court that's not where we're talking about going t the final analysis the arbiter of whether or not this disabling injury occurred the way that the officer here says it occurred that they can consider everything the medical testimony i mean there is definitely no running at any point the officer gets out and then she up here with you can't tell whether she's moving in and faster pace or not i mean it is up to you know i don't know i'm not sure what it what they have is a medical provider making notes perhaps the medical provider misunderstood perhaps he wrote down something you know rovs we don't know that but you can if they're really based upon medical records that somebody else prepare you know in the lambert says that there's an assumption that patients tell their doctors their true conditions and have no motive to falsely i believe that fights here i mean doesn't show anything in my opinion either the fact that she didn't run that's all it didn't show well yes counsel a couple minutes ago if it was a material material discrepancy and their position is that that was a material discrepancy that enabled them or two to discount or credibility so i would ask you to come up with i don't think it's immaterial discrepancy i think it's an general at best you have to remember when she testified and what she said the day she over report i'm january twenty fourth she writes i got out of my white car and series of different medical providers looking at her and diagnosing her prior to this march twentieth day and once again with all the spec to mr bremer if you look at that the arguments made in the