contained in the transcript including a review of the medical records evaluation of testimony of the claimant and evaluation of opinions from respected expert physicians and after doing so the majority of the commission can determine that the claimant had failed to evidence showed as opposed to deferring to the commission our position is that the commission's decision was entitled to deference that it was not necessarily afforded in this particular case for the very reasons that you just expounded i mean the two issues that the commission found most conclusions were based on to some extent a lot of foundation because he didn't we haven't and his findings quite frankly were not necessarily consistent with what he in his own testimony indicated found notable was when you look at the record of what he said to be emergency room physician there's no notice known indication that he ever complained for example being so dizzy it was following him in the machine or having visual acuity changes this means a paramedic i mean those are reasoning of the dissent was well founded at the commission level and so if you chose out opinion as opposed to the majority opinion and i think that's improper weighting of the evidence presented a manifest weight standard the manifest weight standard in your view gentlemen are well familiar with that i don't need to  law to you but particularly an issues a credibility an issues of respect weighing respect of medical opinions and those are the specific areas with which the commission is charged with the responsibility to make a determination they made a determination based on spatters they gave their specific reasons why they made that determination they cited factual findings and multiple paragraphs of factual findings they're also entitled to raise inferences and reach conclusions from the special findings which they explain over three pages of do commission county factual basis which would support their conclusions are as it is clearly they did it's a similar situation as to what your honor is found in the deep right in landscaping case within the past couple of years where you felt that to to the extent that the circuit the commission had reached an opinion based on credibility findings and respect of medical opinions that it was inappropriate for the circuit court to step in and say i've reviewed the evidence differently and overturn it and it's more to the injury  testimony of the claim to as to what he was doing at the time credible compared to what he reported medically even if he receives medical treatment he seems to be the doctor again is same it in doing the butterfly exercises he was doing it for some sort of stretching component that could stretch the nerve of something truly in those riverside medical records very very unusual i was did see and then i went to work and i don't know what it was you know something that everybody wishes or it said you know we really have to defer to the commission they only can use th want to try to bend that nerve and he's still going to end this migraines but what you're going to do is you're going to eliminate the neuralgic pain hopefully reduce that dizziness but we're here because that was not ever provided by  no they cut this gentleman off completely here he is today with you know not able to do his work and not be able to get history from twenty eleven on and i don't i think there are instances conclusion as noted by commissioner to throw the arbitrator and judge all where in her decision and i guess that the armatures decision which fully considered what benefits he should be entitled to medically and t that council made is in the circuit court decision obviously as we've already discussed the commission had made finding some credibility and i think councils of the circuit court judge said that they were relevant and actually what the circuit court judge said is so disturbing is she called the meaningless and this to me another example of how the circuit court judge in this instance overstepped her bias by saying the credibility findings which were found on numerous occasions by the commission and set out in detail in their in their decision to say that those are simply have those symptoms he says he has no symptoms well except that he has no symptoms but there is not objective evidence to indicate that he had an actual physical injury and to the extent that he had a history of chronic history headaches his history of the