course of his employment he had pants to the right commander in chief and had no outstanding just serious disciplinary problems received a number of commendations the issue in this case that have to be mentioned at the outset concerning that standard the first is the review is based not upon selected portions of the record number of the administrative review of law under the like to begin my presentation by going to the heart of the decision of the pension board denying mr williamson the disability benefit and it appears symptoms of p t s d depression and anxiety disorder and he did it because he was facing determination and salt reported his symptoms to both his printing the psychiatric psychiatric clinical nurse practitioner treated him and a social worker treated him not none ever disorder that the board's hypothesis has faced upon the notion that at the time mr williamson filed his application for disability benefits he was about to be terminated from his employment with the police department number one that's incorrect he had no outstanding discipline at that time and while he was disciplined later in july two thousand and eleven it amounted to a three day suspension there never was approximately the time he filed his application any suggestion that he was facing serious discipline well i think under the civil service rules of the city of springfield it applies the policy of progressive discipline and it's it's one thing to be given a free day suspension it's quite another to be terminated and mr williamson work records throughout his history that department did not have any type of fire discipline which would lead to the conclusion that the terminations was like that's my memory when did the incident occur where he was taking the firing tester that's probably not the proper name for it but the gun test and he had problems with that and they sent him home wasn't that around the time that he applied it was in april of two thousand and seven i believe he applied may ninth be a part of me nine but there's an important but here mr williamson had been treated for his psychiatric disorder going back to may of two thousand this just didn't all come up out in the spring of two thousand and eleven we applied for benefit of the prior to his application had he been diagnosed pinching code and basically that was based on the fact that the one doctor said that while he did suffer from these ailments they did not prevent him from functioning as a police officer isn't that really where we have time burdens of the people well if the board's decision had been yes he he has a disability but dr king combined said it would not  alcohol problems causing problems they were being on the verge of end of employment terminations he chose to create a ploy for pension disability benefits now two points there he wasn't on the verge of being terminated when he applied for the benefits them a few thousand eleven number two this wasn't like he woke up the morning he filed his disability benefits and say ah ha i'm going to go down in flames because i need to stop you back up just a moment and if you look at your graph five where it says decision the court's decision don't they specifically state that he is not disabled within the meaning of the code and caso does not have a mental disability that would prevent  to your file opinions or gave testimony of all in this case three of them concluded that he was disabled from police work the don't have the page number a bit but his opinion is in the abstract we filed he basically said three things the first thing he said was that if you went back to work or work it would worse his anxiety symptoms and then he said having said that he worked for fifteen years or ten years or however long it was having these symptoms and he had done to get out of the major case squad and while he was able to do his job it was coming at a price moreover i think back to think and i took no issue with this the symptoms kind of become more exposure or suppressed the worse the symptoms yeah that he ask you this have also working within this situation and how hot a problem correct and there was information that some of the symptoms of being confined could also be attributed to alcoholism and then i think he's also a diabetic if i'm recalling correctly and so how how does that play any it seems to me that dr finck in fine thought it was important that he was addressing those other issues there for improving is ability to function in reducing his symptoms well but that's correct and i can report dr finck combined when in this i don't want to misrepresent the record said alcohol can be a crush and if you have a predisposition to a halt but if both are stressed and exacerbate the problem so i don't think it's possible based upon this record to separate out all as some from the stress disorder it seems to me that they went together now the board also specifically found that  mr williamson was not credible and we had information regarding his failure to avoid i'm driving over or through areas that would cause stress and his  pieces of evidence but ignored much of the of the rest of the record which explained most things you know a simple example it is true that each day he the other route he would have been exposed to a homicide that he was involved in he was accused of not reporting his problems to his father is brother and his partner and what he said is and i don't think there was any evidence in the record to discredit it was i'm a cop my father was a cop my brother is a cop my friends are cops there was a real statement in the police department and he cited two specific individuals who had had psychiatric disorders and he said i didn't want to be one of them i wanted to hide it and it was no evidence in the record two full days and it may have been part of another day a long good mr williams those would question at least four hours and i suspect that's on were the court here but human to me here i think i'm not sure what the figure is but i think it must be close to forty years worth of trial court experience represented by the three of us and one of the things part no benefit can be paid in full at least three physicians examine the claimant they don't all have to agree but they don't have to examine him so three did they all concluded that he did have  you know the four positions that examined him were all experienced forensic psychiatry yes we know what williams and told dr testified to that we don't know there's nothing in the record about what he told the others other than the brief information in the report one would have to think that it forensic  and and here's the end factor killian testified that because mr williamson was claiming a disability and thus had a bias in favor of perhaps exaggerating his medical condition that he was obliged to really get into the gist of whether whether williamson was credible and board  think it applied in this case i think i would think so but isn't there some indication that after dr killian ask your client about whether or not he was familiar with the symptoms of p t s d your client indicat even though he had been exposed to multiple types of information regarding the disorder he had been it exposed all my piece of information and he received some information on this veterans i can't that's his wife is the information he had about p t s d that the information that was provided according to mr martin were that were misinformation dealing with stress reduction techniques not the not the that ever affirmed the decision of a pension board sank a person did not have symptoms or did not have a condition when it bout no support and be of value a close case but i don't think it's a close case it could have but i don't think it's a close case on review primarily because of the deferential and i think  independent factual determination from conflicting testimony i can acknowledge that someone reading certain parts of this record may be able to draw different conclusions but the test here for example in the corning decision is that a reviewing court is not allowed to make independent regard to my brief i painstakingly went through the record with respect to the decision the eighteen page decision  indicated each factual determination by the board where that fact was derived in the record so there is certainly competent evidence now mr baker indicates that this was selected by the board there's no evidence whatsoever that this board did not consider all the evidence in deriving cision there's no evidence there's not a of evidence to that that there isn't an indication obviously we're made its decision from specific aspects of the record after distilling what they heard in three days of testimony it wasn't two days of testimony it was three days of testimony over which two of those days the  subjective and the question then is what are we asking for what is the claimant asking board that some help this court carve out a rule that says that if a gets a lot of administrative review matters and we get a lot of matters from trial court as well we're trying to is a fact judges who appropriate for the ministry of boards are called upon to make pretty builde they had in part because of the that they had credibility issues with the claimant could recall the record provided the acts that they asked  respect to order over the the dam in terms of his driving route when it's the symptom of p t s d would call for just the opposite and his wife testified i don't know why don't you ask him and that's what the board did is ask him and they didn't believe his responses and they felt that his credibility  lacking in that regard and i can give you each one of those instances where for example the issue of whether he knew that p t s d criteria he indicated that he did not what the symptoms of p t s d from that head inventory i would be extraordinarily surprised it is a multiple choice test that has various symptoms and then at the end of the test it says if you score this number of points you have p t s d now mr baker i'm sorry mr williams and these are these people and sure in the border a part of the police structure and they know that for example that the employee assistance program in terms of the the suffering from this has that available and they asked him well why didn't you take advantage of the employee assistance program and he implied that he didn't he replied that i didn't know it was available well he was  e a command he was in a command position and the e a p of the police isn't program was posted throughout the city of springfield police department and the other aspect of it is that disability pension that seemed a little bit incredible to the board as well we note that in terms of the notion of the alcoholism is that dr thinking buying indicated that his out all islam was in remission so that whatever give it and there's no question i think i think it's you know arguable that alcoholism head at least some influence with regard to what his problems on the job were and that that was in remission so it would be expected that his job performance would be better once he got it in remission but he didn't return to work that it's not sufficient that there are conflicts in testimony so perhaps there were here that but that's with the word to ferret it out to be able to look at the witness that was testifying particularly the claimant and review his demeanor weigh the inconsistency and consistencies of this testimony and make it into the hard determination as to whether it was credible or not and that's what they did and i don't believe that there is any way that reviewing corps can look at that and say well the opposite conclusion is absolutely clear and convincingly evidence instances where i know the circuit court of the appellate court say well for this particular instance or that we could draw a different reasonable conclusion that stuff test test is it has that that standard has been overcome by the claimant the hot case also said and it's important that the weight of the evidence that goes to the notion of what mr baker is talking about this selectively and again if you're talking about the entire record the entire record is before work before the court i don't think it needs to be placed in briefs the record is there but it's to say there's no indication of who or didn't look at the entire record and that it's no indication that they didn't give sufficient weight to evidence that need be only some competent evidence in the record to support its findings that is why i painstakingly went through their eighteen page cision and indicated in the record where they had that evidence they didn't create the evidence they didn't imagine it they did they did they prove conclusions no doubt but those conclusions clearly from the evidence that  twenty four of my brief and i would ask the court if it has doubts as to whether those citations are correct to merely look at the record to see that they  are in there if any are not it was simply inadvertent because i think that they are accurate so i would respectfully ask the court to hold the decision of the circuit court in fi that's clearly not what we're doing in fact we made a painstaking effort to present to the court a number of cases of other reviewing courts who he considered disability pensions and had overturned them under the contrary to the manifest we did the evidence standard we're asking this court to do no more than what's been done before but i  binding because it felt that the three positions who concluded he was so called for decisions that he was able to have examined him closer to the time he filed his application they went further i want to be sure that i give the court a correct answer and the answer is i'm not sure i think i think it was a mental health case but i don't want to go out on a limb while while there are a series of cases in which the war the courts have overturned court findings have not disability and mental health cases he didn't even wear a position as has offered an opinion supporting the board brief yet tempted to cite references from the record to support many of the propositions in our opening brief and in our reply brief we focused on those and we pointed out what the board said and what the reference on the record was that was said but also it pointed out what was not said that undermined so  smith information without taking a look at the record in its entirety third point is and i think mr her was not present during the hearing but he indicated that mr williamson really didn't have much of an explanation for why he continued to see the victim's family he offered a pretty detailed explanation of that and specifically with reference to the  and what he said was that during the clothes he you know working on a homicide case he developed relationships with the family that was helpful to him in getting into the mind of the victim putting together the pieces to help solve the crime and he developed a very close relationship with the crusher family they were having trouble well after the trial in coping with with what had happened he liked him he had a sense of feeling that he wanted to do what he could to support bot there came a point in time where you basically sandeman email saying i can't do this anymore it's just too hard so it was not  further questions i don't see and he will be in recess until the mess next matter