my name is ralph bucky and i represent the appellant and us co industries today we presented the court with a question of manifest weight of the evidence something akin to what the supreme court referred to in scott rhesus industrial commission when it said that this case involves many of the time worn issue the resolution of which we have consistently stated lies within the province of the industrial commission these include drawing inferences from the evidence resolving conflicting testimony determining the credibility of witnesses and deciding whether the claimant as fulfilled his burden of proof for you is a case where the workers reverse the circuit court and reinstate the workers compensation commission's denial of compensation if we point out that the circuit court's order was an outright reversal that not a  there's no disagreement on the standard of review i did to get to dr decent man there was free choice of medical i am not sure your honor whether or not he was directed there i don't know if that was a company provided  that's an interesting point because since july first of seventy five the employee is had free choice of medical so there really doesn't exist an employer erm mandated medical there can be will drive you to the doctor but the it may or may not but there is no disagreement on the standard of review there in demonstration commission decision must stand if there is any factual evidence to support its decision as we heard argued in the last circuit court of this court really weighing the evidence the industrial commission or the workers compensation commission is charged with their responsibility but what about his argument that medical records mistakenly documented his right arm of the one you well he the employee either is the one who sponsored those eleven and those records into evidence those are his exhibits he had a chance he had every chance in the world to explain the originally had l for a lift circled you know for arm pain children or whatever then that was ecstatic and changed do you agree with that i agree that that is what is in the record and that is further support doctor by making the affirmative entry hoops i made a mistake it shouldn't be al and should be are and the kind kept a nation of other circumstances that pointed to it being the right arm which i'll get to in a minute did dr de soto testify i know in this case so we just have his records only the cold the ice cold records another way of saying the standard of review is that a reviewing court can only overrule a commission decision if the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent so i respectfully direct the court attention to our brief which asserts that it was within the province of the workers compensation commission to find that each of the following propositions was more probably true than untrue and one of the employees gave a right arm history that dr de simone's references to the right arm were correct that dr de simone was never asked to change the records from right arm to left arm importantly dr do simone examined both arms and made discrete entries as to each radiology technician x rayed the arm complained right or not the left that in putting the blood pressure cuff on the employee's left arm the receiving nurse of voided placing the blood pressure cuff on an arm that was injured why would you do that on an arm that is injured you take the injured arm importantly much later the large large rotat or cuff tear found on dr ward dels examination at surgery nearly a year later in september twenty two two thousand and eight was not caused by the accident of october eighteenth two thousand and seven it not being symptomatic in the meantime further it was within the province of the workers compensation commission to consider several things as very negatively on the employee is assertion that he injured his left arm in october of two thousand and seven first he made no attempt to offer any evidence other than his own testimony to support his theory that the medical records that he sponsored into evidence the errors that he alleged that six months after the alleged accident on february fourth two thousand and eight he attributed his left arm symptoms to an unspecified reaching incident with out attribution to his employment or his alleged october eighteenth two thousand and seven fall at work as he described it finally that on july sixteenth two thousand  he described his october eighteenth two thousand and seven fall to dr wardell he made an important change in the mechanism of injury now his story was that he fell directly onto his left arm not merely catching his fault with his left hand and that he didn't lose his balance but the latter broke there is sufficient evidence even  support a finding that the employee he did not injure his left arm in an accident at work on october eighteenth two thousand and seven and on that basis we urge this court to reinstate the workers compensation commission's original denial of compensation if you know and head is full range of motion you know but very limited in left shoulder it seems that there she talks about the right arm but examines his left arm and that's the crux but your honor the fact that he puts both right and left on their documents that there is confusion documents that there is a mistake not not in the statement it was here to be a mistake but why d evidence but to look at the entire body of evidence in my response or will believe me they didn't do that i guess what i'm struggling with here an unusual part he's appealing the commissions he wants us to reinstate the commission's decision you might write a clear conflict of evidence here you'd have to concede that he entered reasonable doubt you may explain that but the medical records or any interpretation are inconsistent with the claimant's testimony correct and you give us a plausible explanation there's  here but we don't substitute our cousin for the commission don't know you don't know but i would say that the arbitrator looked at the evidence and made the correct decision i would seem that the circuit court looked at the claimant corrects it to him and with regards to the blood pressure cuff that goes in council mention he continues the records reveal that they'd take the blood pressure from  so you know again three pages two mistakes on ten twenty three in ten eighteen versus the bratz versus the rest of this record and versus we  raises a suspicion on the part of the commission that something happened in the enron but again it's a drug that suspicion or respectfully would be you have to have something you have to base it you can't have speculation i the facts in the medical evidence can only lead rational try to fact credible evidence suggest that the left arm was injured and not the right arm because of the rest of the surgeries because of the rest of the treatment nobody in their right mind would subject themselves to three surgeries one under general anesthesia but all of them painful without having an injury to the left arm it was never any injury to the right arm i thank you for your time