as this court stated in the montgomery case while this court is not easily moved to set aside the commission on a factual question this court on my has a to do so when opposite conclusion is clearly apparent so on a first look at when he finds that she only saw for the lumbar strain and was there and in my as of december two thousand and seven that's credible or turbine she also found that the employee exaggerated her pain thereby saying that the arbitrators observations regarding her pain complaints regarding her exaggeration is a finding of the commission so we know that you can argue that dr goldberg was found preferable on some issues  the commission also finally claimants just more incredible and several issues well i agree with you that on some issues yes but in relying on doctor mcnally's opinions that are now his relying on what he's told by the petitioner regarding his subject of complaints this quarter in the chicago messenger case sad the testimony under oath and subject to cross examination is the any medical treatment whatsoever for her lower back prior to the accident that occurred on august thirteenth two thousand and seven and you have suggesting that the ex and didn't happen with him so that you are going to claim his testimony standing alone under the chain of events causation theory would be sufficient then you've got it bolstered by banalities medical opinion so it is there are no evidence in this record to support the commission's decision that it was a i believe there once you find only hope so in the sharon meissner case this court found that because the commission relied on the doctor's opinions which were based on the employee's subjective complaints this matter was again that case was against manifest one of the evidence because at trial the employee did not tell the truth and was not credible well in should come messenger weren't there multiple coworkers who directly contradicted the claimants claim about being injured there were multiple coworkers that case and this or not something that the credibility of the terminations on the plane in that case had to do more with accident treatment right i would agree i think so and keep saying exaggerated i mean he could have brands he ever exaggerate something yes and do not believe anything they ever say again because they exaggerated a little bit absolutely not i would believe but under oath when you are sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the causation so let's assume for the sake of everyone though they had there was some symptom magnification or something a mega vacation event does that mean that the accident didn't happen and she wasn't injured and she wasn't treated no you see the difference magnifique in only exaggerating symptoms of exaggerating pain doesn't mean that there wasn't a legitimate complaint here i would agree with yours that we think she's a hero what do you therefore he's inherently a credible and the  she claims to not have treated it's from october i'm sorry august two thousand and seven through october of two thousand and eight looking at some to pay child spittle records she those records specifically note that she was treated at a chiropractor and seeking acupuncture during that time period that under oath again she said no treatment during that time period it's another false statement under oath and i think when you wrote that the false statement she was making you look at dr goldberg's examination where he medical improvement until i see the second scan following when she had her back lock up in august of two thousand and eight additionally when you look at the histories provided at one point she says she was pinned against the wall at one point in weren't taking into account a therapist sees her in wal mart pushing her mother in the wheel in a wheelchair and finds itself significant that she goes back and puts it in her treating medical records that she observed because it was so contrary to you continue doing therapy from the beginning her complaints have not end up with her object of fines and it went all the way through to trial in this case where again she did not have well leave all subjective chicago messenger case then you cannot say someone who exaggerates on the role is credible when they go to their true doctor and i think you have to say dr mcnally's opinion is based on incredible statements as you're on to point out there are competing medical opinions that could be illinois workers compensation commission could have drawn different influences they did not the opera's the opposite result is not clearly apparent its credibility and we get into a very slippery slope when we asked reviewing course to substitute credibility questions for those who are in a better position the fact finders to make and it's with juries that's with these type of things so i will tell you that the evidence is clear that there were credibility questions raised credibility questions decided in the manifest weight of the evidence to support it in less or any other questions i really don't want to go