period following the date of last exposure that's the definition of want therefore the decision is flawed in at least two ways first it is in irreconcilable conflict with itself you can't have no disease and no work related statement and still satisfy section one second assuming the commission panel had a purpose in mind when it wrote that sentence that purpose must come from a misunderstanding reaction in the form of scarring or fibrosis across a reduction in useful long tissue is progressive and the only treatment is to remove the suffer from any further told told us that he'd stand for the fact it wants to and this is the essence of the case and you have to look at their testimony as well as their view reading report what you had was three of you reader saying he does have c deputy you have the to be readers you them these people say we can't say doesn't and then there's he doesn't this one appears nowhere in the record and what we have is a weighing of the evidence and that's the burden of proof and under this burden of proof i don't know how you get to know negative x ray which is true so i mean it's it's just the nature of the disease you have pathological changes to change this was referred to in two thousand and thirteen sims case and those create shadows on the x ray or maybe they don't when the view readers talk about that x ray they're only saying i saw the shadow now they say i saw the shadows he has it that's sufficient for a positive diagnosis if they say i don't see the shadows it doesn't mean he doesn't have it he just means they didn't see the shadows he still could have it and in fact in the testimonial you'll see that at a legal question is did he have it within two years after he left the mine and all these x rays are taken before he left the mine in this case the most recent shots ray was two years and three months before the date of the only legally relevant question which is he has ceded beauty on august the twenty ninth of two thousand and nine and even responded stipulates that he could have don't i don't object every time something may not be able to come and i think that it's speaks for itself as a bottom line kevin business or in this case you didn't object to them coming in yes or no that i don't have it today the relevant day and i'm most important page thirty three of us prefer spawn that stipulated to that and my question if one doctor testified on my opinion this man had a about five years we know now that if i asked that question does your mega to victory mean this man does not have to see that if he the doctor can say no it doesn't mean they're never asked that question more than five years ago i do now the law should change the decision should change along with that changing testimony because you get to the relevant question is does he have it and it's a light switch it's on or off either cobber you don't i put forward my what the commission didn't say that it took into consideration was that dr rosenberg saw the records but he didn't see the petitioner he didn't examine a petition so he was able to take a patient history and learn the specifics about what happened when he was covered up with rock testimony of both premiums experts on this matter is grounds for a verse highlighted in this case is that the last night's reading that was taken this gentleman was on may two thousand and seven he retired on august thirty one two thousand and seven so we're talking form has to be shred that film's name they're independent they're not retained they're simply trying to read the x ray and get it right you would have to make a reasonable assumption that in it's it's my position it's not and that's why i cited all rights i put in the beginning of my preception one which is the definition of disablement in the occupation of the c s a thank think we all are stuck we're testimony from every one of these experts and so if you have seen of you pete that you can never go back to the point the best the best practice if anyone has a pulmonary see would be not to have further suppose or to what caused it there's no dispute about that but the position of the american drastic society is that an older worker with a mild macone osis may be a low risk for working in currently permissible exposure levels until he reaches retirement age the mine safety health administration which is charged with the health of these miners if they have a positive it this gentleman had a positive chest x ray that may two thousand and seven had him positive he would have been given a desk letter that he condemned present to the mine the mine then has to move into an environment if he's not already in it of what's called the  negative the other thing that's significant about that is that of the nine positive reading by the retained experts of this gentleman's chest x ray those two separate the readers of that film they can make a two thousand and seven is correct then fine of the interpretations that were positive for films prior to that time are obviously in question and that's why the other reason why those nyasha interpretations are important i think there's no question that there's sufficient evidence in the record that this gentleman if you read mine you have evidence of black lung we just haven't gotten the studies that will show  why some people do and some people don't but he says he's very honest and i would suspect that my other experts the press the same question were just dishonest now we an x ray aside it is this that was sore pointed out he had his client examined by dr paul dr cohen took a history from this gentleman with this claim in mind i mean that's why he was seeing him he took a thorough history from him to flesh out all his symptoms it would be part alternately of his diagnosis in the days he testified that based upon the history he took from this gentleman he did not meet the diagnosis of chronic who criticize me for not having dr rosenberg examined him i think that his thorough review of all medical is certainly a great here but the one who did his expert said he doesn't meet the diagnosis of chronic bronchitis that is sufficient evidence that he does not have it comes from their own expert you can look though at the medical i put in medical from pericardium i asked her to springfield clinic and the springfield clinic i institute which may wonder why on earth did i do that but that has  almost five years after he left the money no chronic cough the springfield clinic i instituted the last time that is set respiratory systems charted september three twenty in that's three years some damage to the lungs and it's interesting here and mr bush are mentioned dr why it doesn't want to know anything about these people he assumes that they have enough exposure to have an image come you know suspect then he just looks at  he was an incredible guy diagnostician i mean he really was he with see things on films and tell me something about it that would just blow me away that he could get that from the chest image in this case in looking at this gentleman's films one of his differential diagnoses foursomes randi solved was that he may have had committed ensuite which is exactly what it turned out to diseases that may be a little bit more difficult to work so yes we are and i'm asking you to to put specific definitions on some some foggy terms  ask you here about partially and sincerely and getting you off the record tied into that chronic bronchitis argument it's wrong to do that misleading just like this court question that was asked i think the commission gets to choose whatever it wants to decide whether it's biased or not however it doesn't get to make things up and it gave itself an excuse i'm talking about calling for the integration it's at all it's part of this  there's no proof in the record that there is no proof that he didn't do it on his own time there is no proof that if he didn't do that he wouldn't see patients and that's what i object to and that kind of speculations heriot throughout the city and i ask that you really