justices my name is john wilson i represent the metropolitan water reclamation district of greater chicago in this case the morning this is our appeal of credible evidence in this case as i read the record i don't find any doctor's opinion or any real doctor's opinion that directly relates his current state of  health the prior picture of good health that has been shown previously before the incident after the accident and it's interesting now you can use mr powers own words against mr powers and ironically substance it's gets in his eyes he testifies he's never been the same he had no problems before that and now he has trouble with bright lights the commission believed him so i'm wondering where's the flaw  that during this time the doctor stated that the injured worker complaining to the back cramps headaches nervousness import sleep persisted and the objective condition occasioning that occasion in the headaches and back complaints was that the doctor found before the accident the accident in poor health and good which you have it is actually monocle opinion stating that you know i saw that he had muscle spasms on both side it was fresh spine supporting the testimony of the petitioner in that case  would about this in this case didn't the treating doctor were to him dr i think it's might have been referral wasn't a diagnosis chemical burns to the eyes does anybody dispute that he had chemical burns to  i don't exactly know that here chemical burns to the eyes because if you look through the emergency room reichard they did a they did a litmus test to see if it was alkaline or cedric and it came out seven which is neutral commission's decision well first of all when the accident occurred he's wearing goggles supposedly in the the accident goggles were blown off and supposedly some spray came on his face if you look at the emergency room records emergency room although they treated both eyes and you may be right i can't remember exactly right now that they may have indicated chemical burns were were indicated as a is a diagnosis in the emergency room the only examination that was done was complaint was left i so it wasn't authorized it wasn't bilateral it was just a left eye later when he goes to see one of the other doctors there's a complaint of chemical burns except what cetera what it's like left eye greater than  he testified bilateral with the doctor's opinion the doctors records state something else i it's the medical presents a difficult a difficult situation in this case one because nobody's really medical evidence to that assertion by the close there is yes i would say i would say there is and i would submit the fact that if you look i think it's the niles police case the niles police department which in else police had to do  medical evidence in this case well what happened in that case i bill was sensitive to light in that case what the doctor did his only one of you or two of you were a word wessels if you go in for a run for examination maybe evidence there she had photophobia in this case none of the doctors in here have have notified so there's a difference though isn't it the split here is you saying the doctors here didn't specifically support last thing i'd like to say is if you disagree and in the alternative that that we would suggest that although  court or any court it would seem that we are and i apologize for citing those without explaining that my didn't mean to do that like that but the commission decisions in this case  not suggest that this case is worth seventeen point five percent we have submitted examples of examples that we could find home arris and herrera or there was the injured worker had blurred vision conjunct providers headaches and photophobia he was also a carpenter but because of the injuries that he suffered he could not return to his job he worked at a restaurant is making only nine to our reply brief hammer i'm still puzzled by that he had for a phobia and these problems and conditions at the time of trial so he still had it as opposed to being cured which is i think what we were told and he only received fifty percent loss of  he received treatment thereafter he developed now only sincerely to like me i also developed hearing as a result of the gas or the smoke coming from the well this wall the commission and paragraph three of the decision and so are there if the foundation for which they base there the foundation upon which this decision of the commission was based was not built on a proposal did not make them to prove his case a proton durance of the evidence i think they just said you know you got hurt you're claiming this and we're going to go along with that you talked about the wilders the smoke and i'm not sure but it everybody's familiar with well there's long i'm sure that you've had cases with that you don't get well this long the first day on the job either you know you builds up tolerance after a while and it occurs after a period of years just like carpal tunnel from typing or using the mouse it doesn't happen the first two or three days on the job it happens after a period of time and i would submit that that's that could be a possibility what happened here especially when questioned by as doctors i think the first doctor   he questioned whether there was actually photophobia like i said the other doctors are entirely silent as to whether or not there was for objective evidence of for a phobia but you can be sure if there was they would have put that down in their records and there isn't any so i would respectfully disagree with with with your assessment that it's neutral i don't think it is i think it hasn't been proven by the petitioner it's not in the records that if any of the doctors had noticed is that any of the times they would