court find that the commission decision is not against the manifest weight of the evidence we've discussed today and it's well known it's within the province of the commission to assess the credit credibility of the witnesses resolve conflict assign weight to evidence and drive reasonable inference from th evidence the circuit court substituted your own judgment for that of the commission and that's the incorrect standard the commission found the defendant only says i'm sorry the plaintiff only sustained a calf injury and that's supported record there were also issues with her credibility throughout the case whether she stepped in the past who were not in the commission reviewed the entire record took that into account as well as the medical records which indicate on her first visit that quote patient complaints of pain in the right leg due to tripping on the sidewalk and quote further down in the record she says pain in right calf after stepping off her so on her first visit she's only complaining of calf pain the doctor doctor examined her knee and didn't find anything that was wrong with it and that is there's no diagnosis for that and that's what the commission relied on two days later she goes back to the emergency room and she says that the make before she was in her kitchen and her knee just quality that she sustained an injury to a rape me and that's certainly not correct the commission outlined in their decision as to why this petitioner only sustained injury to her calf and that's that first visit and it's the entire testimony of all of the witnesses who witnessed it said yes i examined her leg when she came back and she's that i look at her leg she didn't mention the knee so based upon these two facts  cases over the last twenty two years certain factual all things just seem to stick out in your mind as a lawyer obviously when doing his or his all your honors but i remember being with miss alteration early on in this case in  september of zero nine and i and i told her sitting angela you know they very well may take your case and try to create a new law here in illinois and the issue of whether or not this was a her benefits for roughly six weeks from september until mid october of two thousand and nine and then mid october of two thousand and nine sure enough i receive a letter that says your client was there in the course of your employment when her allege injury occurred she was participating in a voluntary recreational activity so for the last three years and three months it is has been in essence the respondents position that this case arbitrator in this case arbitrator tiller heard nearly two days of testimony the respondents trampled in four or five witnesses and my recollection of that trial was that there was patella injuries were directly caused by the injury of september first of all night he then went ahead to order the respondent to pay for the proper perspective medical behalf of the petition and dr wall at that time causally related the neet to the incident of september first of all not there was no other medical testimony presented as the causal connection all well and good but when he showed up at advocate on september first following the workup that he did not complain right knee pain and right knee problems so he's saying the commissioner seemed less chance of it and find it was some hit into a pothole on the sidewalk and then her falling off of which if your honor i don't know him if if you have the pictures that were submitted arbitrated utah was roughly two feet in height and this wasn't just a lead you hit her foot into with with all due respect the counsel me for three years we've been arguing whether or not this was a compensable injury now to continue to appeal this case this woman hasn't had a dime about if it's in three years over completely issue which was not even before the review panel is seen seems to be absurd to me the entire defense in this case all along was that it was not a compensable case she was acting is not alone a voluntary recreational activity the opinion reviews seem to  i just find it strange to that we're here three years and three months later and we're now arguing about a part of the case which was never really even their issue on appeal to the review court that the industrial commission it was never really the issue on appeal to the circuit court and then judge no person per reviewed all of the evidence there was a voluminous a lot of medical records tendered as part of the record and if you and if you look at his order he said there was an overwhelming did state that she had great leg pain they examined her when she went to the first clinic may examine her entire leg they also examined her point based upon that examination they only took x rays of her ankle and they only took x rays of her foot and the only diagnosis was that of a calf strain so i think that the doctor needs to say she did not injure her knee she only injured her calf the doctor saying she didn't injure her knee because the only thing i'm diagnosing her with is a cat strain there weren't any didn't state that but he stated that based upon what she told him he didn't look at the september first of all in one record she went and told him on the first visit that she was stepping off a curb and her need just located and she  pop in her calf and her knee disappeared at the same time that's what she told dr whelan that's why dr warren said that it was probably related so that's an incorrect causal connection opinion based upon the facts that we have on the record and based upon everything that evidence on the record of that she was seen in amorous western in two thousand and three because her need to smoke she told one of the doctors that her need cropped out when she was a child doing gymnastics when he pops out there's nothing in her record indicating that her need have to out because her stepping off the curb if you look at the first doctor's visit examined her there was nothing wrong with it there were no physical findings