won't the proper remedy well i think we've asked for two things your arm one would be to remand it back to the commission with the with direction as to the presumption and how it should be applied the giving the commission an opportunity to do their part well i think we asked for quotes of those items i think the remaining back to the commission is if you decide that they improperly applied the presumption in this case which i think is evident on the face of who may have been exposed to bad here during the case since he did not use the c s e v a that self contained breathing apparatus in there pursuant to the presumption contained in section six out of the work comp evidence and when you're considering that presumption issue you should be looking at the evidence that was presented by in this case by the city of purina solely in terms of whether it's  decision so i think there's a reference back to earlier in the decision in the medical causation now but if you look at the you know i'm not going to discuss the circuit court of the court as if you must need negligence that any theory or in any art what keats self contained breathing apparatus argument was raised was directed at the exposure element the guardian acts the right in light of literature and in light of the literature presented to the commission to see just numb why they shouldn't believe him but if they do want to we have to decide contrary to their position well the right to have is if the commission in this case and i'm a change which he recruited the authors and edited the chapters and if you look there's a chapter in that book all the risk of cancer and fire fire and there's a section in that chapter called cancers your unary system and there's a subsection in that book kidney cancer and this is a book he had it he got the office in when you read this section on kidney cancer it says this list clearly includes agents encountered firefighting however the eight he put down the epidemiological studies that assessed kidney cancers and firefighters  show consistently elevator graphs that's his book that's what he added and this is in conjunction with the rest of the testimony that eighty percent in eggers opinion ninety five percent of all kidney cancers are id connection even if you if we come back up here on the manifest weight of the evidence standard that seems to me that he would he would fulfill that state that would it would be that court could look at this and sort i'm not asking for an advisory opinion in terms of that your honor i'm just trying to address the way to be given  ever presented their argument we have specifically said the supreme court does not use the clearly erroneous standard and mix questions of law and workers compensation  breathing apparatus whether it could have worn in the bad areas of the poster because he was wearing then you have the causation section of the arbitrary decision which discussed the medical testimony and this case and really in the context fires that mr grant was attending to on average three course of eighteen or nineteen years what is being left out is his expert didn't rely upon that is that spirit had every opportunity to meet with my clients meet with mr grant speculation on the city's own expert at every opportunity to rely on those that did the other problem the major problem i have with dr enters opinions is that he cites to selective portions so i would be more than happy to reweigh the evidence with this court it's just not this court's responsibility to do that the commission consider this evidence went through it and found that  is not required it's sufficient if an expert testifies that the work exposure might or could have caused and injury and to the extent that the city