application with carbondale please mention board for a pension disability and specifically in on duty pension disability and that application was made almost two years after the incident that the in the record he stated that he had hit his head on his squad car door while he was reaching into the cost the evidence or the episode was presented to the board awfully indicated that he had reported this incident at the end of  all reports they all received other medical records from other visits to a couple other doctors so there was quite a bit of medical records in the right actually it's a rather big set of records that were presented to the board actually there w twenty one exhibits in addition to the medical records the board was presented with records from the city apartment and those records reflected that esteban had made it an application worker's compensation benefits and went through that process and something laid o not but again if you look at those records their records were all dated prior to his application or their review of all these applications for disability and was based on their prior exam to him in two thousand and five and two thousand two thousand and eight and noted that it appeared that all the if you want home pressure fractures that may have appeared on the first m r i i live longer than the resolve cells and they couldn't find any reason decision on the investigation performed by the three positions that they select so you get my position that the record contains stansell evidence where the finding the fact that he was not ordinary walks of life imposed on a policeman by the statutes of this state or by the ordinances or police regulations of the city in which this article is in a fact or by any special time there's another sense of fact carol but i don't think that that again if the board is clearly and they don't consider all of the they pick and choose what they want particularly from the record with no question i think their their decision is just simply  there's just really in my opinion there's really not a lot of me to say because i think the record is awfully clear i think the briefs are off their about what has happened here i think really believe the decision was painted because he interposed in this case it was spontaneous an issue of whether there was a conflict or some bias by an eccles because he was a member of the police pension board and he resigned said and specifically as part of his opinion that he recognised the deferential standard but is not controlling where the board is prejudiced or by that was not an issue that was ever raised by any party in this case the judge just raised its response they based on his review of his knowledge he did state that we kind of apples had testified in front of him hundreds of times so he's using information i guess outside the record in making his decision he's also applying a different standard because he believed there was some fine was a factor they consider the fact that he didn't conduct any work already i believe was a factor that they that they determined to determine that he was not disabled so it's not just picking and choosing i think they just recited some of the things that they saw represent for the decision and that liberation process i'm sure there was a lot of other things that they looked at and for those reasons we believe that there i believe the decision was correct we're asking this court reverse