get through that so i get this i don't think i'll get through it either but i'm trying to show off the commissions not this claim of wrong as a matter of law and also against a manifest where the evidence mr last exposure worst november two thousand and ten forest course you do he goes he had to prove that it is his seat if he existed on at least november thirteenth two thousand and twelve or before even though the proof of that could occur through evidence offered after the one have period the birth of the claimant and the requirement for the employer or mirror image to claim it has to prove it exists before want if there was any seated it didn't exist until after one am now since the universal testimony and that's what i i like about this case and some of the others i've dealt with here universe a testament everybody agrees your point if that definitive but i'm hung up on why it's totally irrelevant because as i search for what will be meaningful to the court i try to get down to the basic question that is what does this what i'm call two thousand level i've done these cases without pay because what i think is right also in the last two years i have become a professor in the internal medicine at the university of mexico go there all the time there we do research on lung cancer i also do that because i think it's right i teach a class with them and in working with them and their epidemiologists and their research people i've learned something when you hit a wall you don't give up you don't flow chart i see in comparing these x rays that you're talking about in the analysis you don't put the two readings side by side and say i get this and there is a medical basis for what i'm saying the people who are going to make the judgment the commission the arbitrator's none of them are radiologists none of the repeaters they don't even see the x rays there is no basis for them to say i question you can't do this i'm going to stand here and say to the commission the arbitrator's have no basis for making a medical conclusion regarding which one of these ruffo you don't disagree when we got down to th common box what does it mean that is testimony by the reader him or herself democrat that's tested by the readers yes ok so they're free to reject or accept that testimony based on what you're saying they can no i'm not only saying they're free to i'm saying i'm asking them to i'm asking you to tell them to base it on the opinion these people which they can clearly do not on the bas that is a sufficient snedeker basis to make a diagnosis of see that the one piece of the negative actually is a different piece of evidence you can't do with the negative after what you did with this one because the negative wrong i'm very happy today if we can get to the point that it's the basis of the opinions we're looking at and i say that right now the way to find out is what if you guys say the guy said he's got it what this guy about that he can agree with that because this guy saw stuff and he was a coal miner and so it could be this guy can agree with this guy here all the readers are the same they take the same test he says if he sees that stuff and he's got to call my exposure that's a sufficient basis for him to say that dr meyer says i don't see it but that doesn't mean he doesn't have it now so we're left this is all we've got for that medical basis and that red lights on but you have lived a question can i say one more thing yes please think when it comes down to it and you use the flow chart to get down to something we can  don't actually we can't really but what was the opinion of these guys i'm telling you that all the readers can be equal you can accept a reading of both of these people and i think they would i agree submitted to the readings in this case on one from dr smith and one from dr alexander both of the march eighth two thousand and eleven chest x ray that's the only positive actually one taken shortly after he left his his own employment and as justice had to mention i think this goes to the weight of those chest x rays doesn't mean that the x rays are relevant it shows that throughout his thirty five year old mine employment history the chest x rays were all read as negative the claimant did not put in any evidence of a positive chest x ray prior to the time he left would agree with that bet she has that that two years what i'm saying is the evidence is that coworkers know with money as this it can develop after they leave the coal mine i think the testimony various it's unusual having some signs that disease before he left home and that's where it goes to the weight you know it's interesting thing about this case is when you look at the dates of there's no positive reading of that mark or that very wary eleven chest x ray in evidence there's a chest x ray from march eighth of two thousand and ten days later that dr smith and that there has to be some point where you go from having a negative chest x ray to a positive checks after as with any other disease i mean if you've got cancer you know so there's some point there but that changes but in this case in ten days that would be nearly impossible that's what the evidence here says to have a completely negative x ray and then ten days later have an x ray could that shows opacities throughout all the evidence was the bit that is unlikely that it would have not been there and then ten days later be there i don't think there's any evidence in the record any medical evidence that it could have appeared and  about is the issue of whether you know having a negative chest x ray allows they try are back to find it bad to claim pathology evidence we don't know if it's there you know dr myers interpreted chest x rays over a span of four years that they were all negative we don't have any pathology to disagree with that  fact finding the testimony said fifty percent of coal miners may have it on obscene didn't have a positive chest x ray during their life is not sufficient for the claimant to meet his burden of proof it's for the claimant to prove that he has c w feet and saying that just because he has a negative chest x ray can't be ruled out is not meeting his his burden of proof if that was the case these negative from two thousand and i would agree with with john that those chest x rays that are way back and we've introduced some cases where they were taken three or four years after the person started mine then they work for another time from a progression now that would seem to me to have relevance and could be considered because basically what we have here is that everybody has a behavior but everybody passed the driver's exam that's out there and yet today you're well and i think you when you look at this case particularly i mean we're looking at an x right there ten days are thank you and i would agree that in certain situations we've put in all the x rays and some of them taken thirty years before are not you know i was should be given anyway because they don't they don't matter but in certain cases where they're in close proximity to the end of the mine career and there's evidence medical evidence that generally doesn't progress once the mining in months the exposure ceases i responses and this response because sometimes it looks like it's a county that size and i don't know each arbitrator is a little bit different and you know the commission sometimes i think just the interest of firms that but i think they have seen arbitration decisions whether or not they know they know that those x rays taken thirty years before they don't give them anyway and i'm seen as to since i think the commission viagra traders understand that you know x rays are taken three years into the minors employment are not going to be given any that's all i can ask and then you would tell me and then it is not what i agree with the next time i come up to try to get something but i'm just happy with with the way the discussion going here t with justice hudson's last question there that the arbitrator gave reasons why dr meyer was with or in it with all due respect so why he also looked at twenty x rays that couldn't prove and bring this evidence close together and like i said that flow chart is what counts if what you're saying is dr meier is is what persuasive and all these things better for the ilo reading there is no medical is something in here which should be looked at they're completely competent to do and i think they're charged by law and that is go one step down from the actually itself and say what did they say it man that's what they should judge and on this one i can say that they're both right and they would say that they're both right i can say meyer is correct that if he saw nothing then want that means it is he can't prove it's not there we look at what still said and say yeah he's right he saw something there and this guy's got the exposure and that's enough to make it bad most of us this is a very close call but what the commission needs to do in the sunday when ever you got a positive x ray he knew it became a positive sometimes there is absolutely no way to know when it became positive but there is one thing for sure one time it wasn't and then another time it was and created everything they can have i really object to evidence i want to get on the table and in doing that probably just as hofmann you're correct if i have made a matter of weight when i read it didn't i because then it became then what i'll say is and it should have no weight because it doesn't answer the question beth that would be a better argument that that that is you have taught me that this morning and i appreciate that so can we agree on these things and this will be the outcome because they have no basis for they don't see the x ray they have no training they might like meyer and that's fine second thing is each period here said what they have actually meant and the arbitrator commission should must have to make that determination and what they said decides the case they said a positive and negative victory are two different pieces of discreet evidence the negative rhetoric can only mean this that we can't prove he doesn't have it's all a commitment the positive entry can mean he hasn't which brings us down to our final step is what do we do to look at the evidence and make a decision on who