book runners the determinative determinative question in this case is whether trauma for the petitioners knows accelerated the natural preexisting to cheerier ration of his accelerate the natural to cheery aeration of this preexisting and inevitably blinding condition of radko dystrophy we ask that the decision of the industrial commission a two to one decision be reverse because the medical opinion upon which is but it is based that being the opinion of dr john for near is faulty we believe that the dissent in the commission's decision by commissioner lindsay should have been dispositive of the case  her reasoning should have been accepted why is foreigners opinion faulty number one it is unscientific and it should have been excluded as a matter of law number two it even if it found its way into negative inevitably have blinded him in the reasons good and in nobody's disputing that he was whacked in the nose by a swinging door at work in april of one nine hundred ninety seven which fractured his nose he received some immediate care at an industrial clinic when we get to manifest weight you want to trudge with weighting evidence you can't just look at one report one piece of evidence and say oh that's a fish and to sustain an a ward it might be sufficient in the absence of other evidence but where what you're charged to you're charged with comparing this evidence we are mission is actually the commissions we well merely examining whether the app telling has sufficient evidence to support the decision does not answer the question before you whether the appellant possesses the manifest w the evidence you want to try to roll yourself off from evidence you must look at the whole record all the medical literature on the topic nowhere has anyone ever expressed the opinion that trauma accelerates rod cone dystrophy no belief and the point he's trying to make is well dr fornier isn't wrong he's just the first one well maybe yes but if he were the first one if he were we say that his actions after making this momentous discovery that trauma can accelerate this rare condition his actions after discovering this be a lie his opinion christopher columbus of medicine and he just discovered the new world well he's never written never written on the subject never come in to anybody on the subject despite a list of publications in his c v he's f he also claims to be an editor of a journal he has a facility to do so of course you move for a friday hearing before the arbitrator but recent you move for friday hearing before the arbitrator we did not the arbitrator what's the commission supposed to do about it they can't take evidence of the serious evidentiary procedures at the industrial commission i believe make our objection as to scientific basis a sufficient if not in disability if there is a question about misbehavior or waiver of fry the industrial commission's procedures as you may know are rather curious you take the doctors the expert depositions before remarkably you take that positions of experts before the testimony of the petitioner before the trial if there is an evidentiary objection during the course of the expert deposition we are only obligated to object if it goes to the matters that could be corrected during the deposition whether a doctor is behaving unscientifically or not is not something that he can correct during his deposition it is when the the the objection is proper when the deposition is offered into evidence w commission make it so that we really can't object until we know what's happening and at the commission we do things backwards we take depositions before testimony you can't know the objection was made disprove your saying foreigners opinion is the first time that the history of the entire world and some doctor has opined this conclusion and therefore the commission should give it no weight basically a little bit when compared to the opinion of your your bases his opinion on several things one of which is holy mackerel the man got whacked in the nose and there was a sudden deterioration that assertion is beadle lied by the petitioners own testimony at page seventy one of the record his own words from his own mouth were my vision curated over a twelve month period twelve months doctor for near on cross examination admitted that if this took six months or a year to occur then i would conclude that there was no causal  testified about short periods of time there's even a hint in a medical record i attribute that frankly to human frailty he's reading the car before the accident yes and then after this accident  right i must say that i don't have that figure it was it was not long ok we have we have you're saying that the acceleration of the deterioration but is there not some not like that following her magic incident he had losses in both eyes which were not numerically the same either there was some very difficult calculations of visual well so obviously both eyes were to the baseline illinois the first is through expert testimony and the other is through the so called chain of events method of the fruit of causation it is our position that we have proof asian through bowl methods of proof with respect to the expert testimony produced the testimony of dr corney or an ophthalmologist he that we sometimes see very significant trauma accelerated the colon right dystrophy that this gentleman had leading to legal blindness over a period of three months with you was that there was no literature out there that says that this can happen and if you will read donalson which my opponent has cited in his brief they address the issue of whether and that it's important that there be some literature out there to support the scientific opinion and they said you don't need it they said look at there is no literature saying that this cannot be so just because my opponent says that there is no literature out there saying that this can happen that doesn't taken before the case went to hearing he could have gone into the arbitrator made a motion i want to fry hearing before this case ever goes to hearing to see if there should even be here if there's any basis for a hearing if this testimony doesn't meet the standard in friday he didn't do that he didn't mention a word about friday when it was offering the evidence he said i dispute the scientific basis of the opinion but that was his only object you're asking me if i think this i'm asking yes no i don't think he does because it's the opinion of dr fournier is based on sound scientific principles let's go through the scientific principles relied upon he talked about secular forces being transmitted through the nasal boning into the eye orbits that scientific he talked about the swelling think tests that were performed on this gentleman throughout the hearers and said look at this man had a stable condition of the conrad dystrophy and traumatic decrease in vision in sudden detour your opponent why he has that question to me that this all occurred over a twelve month period did your client testified that prior to the accident he reached the point of legal blindness in ninety eight so it can deteriorate beyond the legal blindness and that's what my client testif fournier my opponent will have you believe is some type of mad scientist coming up with some crazy way out the theory in the case if you will look at back to fourteen year he's a professor at northwestern university my opponent's portrayal of him as being something of a range individual i don't think it's fair and i don't think it's consistent with the evidence and certainly but commission didn't think that there was anything wrong with the bench ills if you look at what the commission decision said he has widely published his learned publications they spoke in very compressed clearly that the drama accelerated the duration of your client's eyesight he's points of golden brenner's is the opposite it's up to the commission to who the credibility in believability of the witnesses and the weight to be given that's what this comes down to  brenner's theory about this was a gradual deterioration over a long period of time she just ignores to africa most of her opinions she's ignoring in her analysis  physical mechanical trouble when we asked him doctor do you know that there happened is there any evidence of that is there any anything no there's not no evidence of any such damage ever disclosed a doctor for near could only surmise there may have been such damage the doctor emphasized that he was surmising when he answered absolutely to the question so you're just surmising that there was such damage his opinion is predicated on speculation that is not the basis upon which an award can be made he surmised it will make you feel like you're