but there are also some problems it is a code test my opinion is subject to the same problems wasn't there some finding by the arbitrator that co also did not know how much force it took to operate the pedal he did not regarding her work activity that was incorrect as was cause i wouldn't say his his opinion going to work activity was incorrect just that he didn't have additional information he was still operating under the assumption for what she was actually witness testimony that was clearly not the activity that she was performing at the very least with her lifting up and before and putting the pedal down you know she was going using both of her little force she was thirty three to four hundred times a day for five days a week for four to years and she had no problems with her knees prior to this work activity and developed problems only with her only in her right knee which and there's no evidence that there was any any other cause his testimony about and his reference to the breaking of the glass and i think that goes to the question of as this court pointed out how much force was used we've got testimony from the petitioner that says that she she she calls  stop we've got to testimony from mr wyatt who says i do sees i've used these machines and it's a minimal amount of force and he says it over and over and over and in that situation we look and see what did the arbitrator want to photographs in a goes on it talks about mr white's testimony so clearly the arbitrator who witnessed the testimony and arbitration in the commission made a decision how much force based on the record that we have do we think was used in may they chose not only with the petitioner told him and so we ask ourselves well is are both of those opinions flawed in that situation and i would say this in response when we look at those opinions which one is most consistent with the evidence that was presented here we have dr weiss is opinion which is consistent with what was demonstrated on the d v d and the d v d showed petitioners work duties and that was viewed by the arbitrator and the commission and they relied upon it and they said based upon the activities that we see we don't find anything other than minimal force and i think that's very critical i think that really resolves case now just a couple loose ends i agreed that this is a failure proof case i think this is a case where there was a lack of demonstration by the petitioner of the awful force used to allow a doctor couldn't make any type of an opinion and so the commission had to view what evidence it did have available and it made the only determination that it could in this case now this is a one of those situations that the court often sees amenophis where we've got one person saying yes one person say no you've got opinions that contradict each other and as this court knows the commission has to resolve that and decide which one is going to go but i would even go as far as to say this if we would a lost this case an arbitration and lost its case before the commission i would have difficulty arguing this as a reversal on appeal because the evidence in this case is on both sides somebody had to it had to be resolved in somebody's favor and the question that we have looking at on review is were the reasons given by the commission in resolving that issue were those supported by the record and they are and we point to those on the breeze thank opinions being inclined conflict with each other it is more that dr poe's may have had an incomplete set of facts when he was making his opinion dr weiss actually had an incorrect set of facts he was operating under the