please the court you already have my name consul i would like to reserve five minutes for a republic although i don't anticipate using the full fifteen minutes in any event but i don't have a question here twenty five is automatic review we all agreed that the standard of review is a manifest weight of evidence but we don't approve of two other things we don't agree with what manifest weight of the evidence means and we we don't agree as to whether there focused on two appellate court decisions lambert versus the doubters pro firefighters pension fund and rose a versus the can't keep firefighters pension fund in that the heat the procedure is very similar to what happened in the present case in mr white's case if one reviews all of the medical evidence the three doctors that the board selected to weed salmon him the evidence deposition of the treating surgeon of the examinate i meet dr for workers compensation all of these doctors agree that mr weight is disabled from being a firefighter and they agree that it's due to the two accidents that he alleges occurred while he was at work the pension fund indicates that these medical reports are premised on that there were two accidents and they didn't find mr wade credible therefore they don't need to  acknowledge the medical evidence and they deny him a disability benefit for either of the accidents they argue the pension board argues that manifest weight of the evidence means that if there's any evidence in the record and y manifest with the evidence is a differential standard you can't be with the evidence you can't substitute your judgment for that of the other side but it doesn't mean that if there's any evidence in the record to support their decision regardless of how minuscule then the board's decision must be affirmed the appellate court lambert said oh there is case law that would seemingly support the premise a complete review of the applicable law reveals an agency's decision will nevertheless be reversed if it implausible rose acts stands for the same proposition essentially the board says that mr weight was incredible for three reasons he had two injuries one was march of by march twenty third two thousand seven the second was december third two thousand and seven as well and so the injury that happened in march the twenty third two thousand and seven was a formal injury port was filled out april the twenty ninth two thousand and seven and the first visit to his doctor who is a chiropractor is a chiropractor who have seen him before his first visit was april twelfth two thousand and seven and the board's contention is that the have they they hope that that's their third file or their problems are that it was late reporting that there was there were inconsistencies in the medical records and he didn't call supporting right witnesses and it the reality is is is if you look at the testimony mr cheese ben mr cheeseman went into the building with him to overhaul the first floor all of the people who testified had been doing their extinguishing activities on the second and third mr cheese been a problem but i'm not sure that mr baez would have added anything because he didn't see what happened all that happened is that mr wood told him that he was experiencing pain after after doing the overhaul but the reality is mr warner had told his doctor reported to the city and the city and them and this is the second area of corroboration the city handle his time off of work his time off of work was intermittent at first but if you look at the record volume one beginning at page c sixty three and then it's also found at the administrative record  he was being handled by the city as being a lot of work for a job injury and that staffs are documented in the record and it's in that it so whether the attendance records would give you more information than mr  barr it's not clear to me and that mr barnett being called as a witness would be fatal to a case where all of the medical evidence supports that this gentleman was injured as a result of a line of duty incident i simply don't think is is within the manifest weight of the evidence wasn't there also no one really say that they saw him head in tearing down only one witness suggests that he that they saw him in his train up here and that it turned out here appeared clean all of the other witnesses testified that they didn't see him and turned up here and he was clean but the important thing is is that this was a large fire i think the the report was over twenty pages and there were multiple and there were multiple apparatus extinguishing this fire warmth as a captain has got twenty one years of seniority ok only one more year before he should retire during the first half of the scene he didn't go in the building he didn't have i'm turned out here and he was never eleven forty but all of the other witnesses had left the scene and when they left the scene mr wayne was still in the incident commander of the incident commander is the one the highest ranking firefighter who oversees the scene and make sure everybody is doing what they  do so it's not conflicting that he will his uniform would have been clean because he wouldn't have been doing anything where he would have been exposed to debris so the question is is mr  fatal to his claim when he said i don't remember exactly what i saw that when i saw him he didn't have any debris and obviously the ceiling caved in on him and knocked him over one would have expected to breathe whether mr s seen him at a point in time after they had occurred it isn't really clear and the reason that mr roy to get back to the original point that is didn't report it is he has forty five days to report it and he really was hoping the pain was going to go away and the same was true of the second so as i say the witnesses who were called and it did not establish i mean they were fighting a fire and no one could establish a timeline that they saw mr white that at a place that would discredit his own testimony and if you want to interview these witnesses it's not clear one would have come up with someone who would have seen what happened particularly in light of mr white's testimony that he was all by himself the second basis of the finding a lack of credibility is what the board describes are in consistencies in the medical reports that that my client made to the the doctors who treated him and i i know that it's managed by a doctor should knock who was a carroll cracked or who saw him for the incident and i did object during part of the cross examination but i did let the examined there there's a box that says is this work related and he didn't check the box and then there's a box did this happen at work and he put a question mark but if you look at four forty eight and i again i won't read much to this it says eight in your own words describe the accident quote pulling ceiling checking for fire extension and slipped them away when debris and fell against the wall between the toilet in the sink i don't know what clear history one could provide and this is contemporaneous with his first visit to a doctor he didn't go away doctor because he is hoping the back pain would go away he wanted to serve out his last year there is nothing inconsistent in these if you go if you go backwards beginning at page four forty six for instance that aftershock has her own typewritten history which is exactly the history that was provided by mr to the pension fund and if you go back further because there was an issue whether mr white had told the surgeon the same history there is a letter from dr schneider it is the ministry record page work related injury in april of two thousand and seven injured his lower back so the history and the records is identical there's there is no inconsistency in the medical history and if you go all  to page for eleven again dr schock documents the history of the december three two thousand and seven episode word for word in the manner in which mr white testified before this pension fund and again at the time he seen the doctor he is reporting the injury to the city employing to the city of bloomington is that is paying him and in their attendance records this document that documented on refute it which raises the question i raised in my in my reply brief is there a requirement in the pension code that there be independent witness cooperation of have to give the date but i think that for a conversation to be admissible there has to be some testimony that focuses it on a specific time period at least the season was yes i actually that it was properly admitted it would be a a a a modicum of evidence for the court to weigh in deciding whether it's against the manifest weight of the evidence but whether mr fowler's testimony at a restaurant held that the history given to a treating physician is admissible for the purpose of corroboration so the court considers mr fowler's testimony in the face of all of this other evidence i still think it's against the manifest way  board found the testimony of mr warmth lacked credibility for many reasons starting with the doctor's reform the question is is this a work related injury one place it's left blank one place it's met with a question mark that's not a tough question especially for firefighters who's been around for twenty five plus even since the december incident sometimes he mentions both incidents and we have to remember that these medical records are the they're based on a sole source they are based only on mr ward there is no there is no independent source of of anything that's in those medical records aside from what mr worthless told his doctors so we start there that's compound it by either the either the lack of or delayed reports of injury the late visits to a chiropractor he had a longstanding relationship with this  rector he claims a back injury but he didn't see it kind of he didn't see his longstanding chiropractor manage his health care has said earlier he didn't go to the chiropractor for twenty days  the deputy chief siren indicates that with respect to the of this big fire there are no interim reports dr ridge reports in the  face of testimony of five or so other firefighters who were at the scene all of whom say that they saw mr wolf there none of them the board of called cheeseman sure but the board the presented attorney called the witnesses that he was aware of who frankly presented the front we believe we dressed up and let him down was i in the room with him nobody said that he was in the room when this happened but he could have at least presented evidence to corroborate his statement that he we don't think that the board clearly felt that he did not do that his testimony wasn't credible system only has has gaps in his testimony has the information presented the doctors has gaps justice there's another there's another way to do that but i think in this case the decision of the workers yes it's focused on gaps in the testimony yaps and in the records failure to simply page with the simple questions and