review of the employer's peel from the circuit court's decision which are from the owner worker's compensation commission decision of a causal relationship between the  claimants employees accident on january thirteenth two thousand and eleven and his alleged condition of bill being now as outlined in our briefs the evidence and testimony ascertained at trial reveal numerous and consistencies as well as facts pointing to a chronic and unchanged medical condition prior to the motor vehicle accident such that this honorable court should arrive at an opposite conclusion and there is a credibility component to the argument however it is the duty of this honorable court to waive the fact finding and the standard being manifest way to the evidence where it is compensation commission the arbitrator ignored the evidence contained within the medical records when you're a trial and a claimant testifies what does any trier of fact do but way that testimony versus that was erroneous or should not have been relied upon it's there for the commission to decide and that's where you get into the way to correct we do believe however that the opinions expressed and the difference between d glaser and dr land off is based upon the totality of the medical evidence those records admitted prior to the work accident of january thirteenth two thousand and eleven and those records  d the medical evidence as a whole is the basis on which dr land off arrived at his opinions that the the pain that this gentleman experienced was ongoing all the way up to nearly the date of the accident he was specifically found living off this characterize some of the plane with medical records and they specifically found he did not review others so the commission itself found a foundational problem with land ostensibly did they not right or wrong  opined he had some problems with his testimony well they did favor of course the testimony of dr clay i mean they pointed out the deficiencies or what they thought were deficiencies in their lives today certainly but commissioner lan born in his dissent did not granted it was a totality of the medical evidence and only weighed a portion of it the way they wrote the opinion only relied upon just as well which was inconsistent and a certain portion of the medical evidence that being primarily doctors ways was records and did ignore not only an expert admittedly hired on behalf of the responded to perform an independent medical examination  think dr land offers a credible doctor his credibility is not a commission the commission deals with he's hired experts on a daily basis correct in that they know who they are and they know from once they come here and they know what with all due deference to how you preface that comment your honor what you're outlining and laying for is basically a scenario where the respondent has no challenge to any medico i think let's go back just  lead said that the manifest made of all the evidence of this that should favor the response correct that's which is that correct you relies on review we don't them and as you outline your honor you you are accurate you are correct however the standard of manifest weight such that if an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent you as the asking this for to overturn a question of fact decision that was made by the commission on causation of injury as you know and we believe that there is plenty of competent credible evidence in the record to support the decision that the commission made in this case lyons argues that there was evidence that was ignored in this case we disagree with that as the commission decision points out there was a history of prior health problems before with this petition or before his park crash in two thousand and eleven that's noted in the decision is extensive treatment is noted in the decision and it's also noted in the decision that that expensive treatment is to a different part of his body and that was argued before the commission correct so to say that that evidence was ignored is not taken is not taken well because it was carefully considered the same way that the issues raised about inconsistency in the petitioners testimony being ignored these were all carefully considered by the commission and in fact they pointed out several consistencies on their own and said why they don't think that these are sufficient enough to make them decide the other way they find more most of the inconsistency in consistencies could be minor in nature and gave their reasons for doing so there has been no argument that the reasons given for doing so are not competent or not credible and if there's there are reasons in the record to support what the commission has decided here ultimately it appears that what lyons is asking for here is for this sport to engage in a your honors the only point i'd like to raise in response to counsel's argument is with respect to these different parts of the body that were discussed throughout the record i just find it interesting that a police officer is trained in fact investigation and is bound to find the facts when investigating an accident whatever the case may be as a police officer  suddenly cannot determine it is deemed incapable of determining where this body paint was pre and post an accident i just think it's very vague and it's self supporting the records indicate that this gentleman had