industrial commission and the arbitrator treated this almost as a repetitive type of exposure unlike the have been very similar to the case or heard earlier in the us can this is a one time industrial accident mercury and dr appointive but all of the doctors are done a fide no one chemical that mr hodges was exposed to in the difference with this case in amongst many others is that all of the doctors it's undisputed who apparently takes on the role of examining physician for argon in these types of situations i am arguing to this court that an instant replay is required to do novo that this court is clearly gives this court jurisdiction to review the issue of causation it is very rare however to say to this gives this court the ability to review castings case which we cited to is the case that allows us to look at that and overturn a con of peers this issue look at her opinion and say that it was incorrect but what's the linkage between  sort of alcoholism because there was a condition here the condition was the phenol exposure and immediately there after there was symptoms it really did it did it it  defies logic to look at this case and not find a causality between the exposure and the immediate onset of symptoms and the subsequent disability that resulted from it facts and science but that is absolutely incorrect my can and i have a list like can base this opinions on science and fact number one he testified that there was and the fact nobody there was a council which was identified nobody disputes the chemical become a call was identified through the m s the ice sheets there was the you media onset of symptoms which more all of the people who were exposed to it that location on that same date at that one time exposure complained of they all testified and they all complained of the same type of smell and they complain of the same types of symptoms clearly we have a temporal relationship here is one of the things  also cited to the level of pheno and your honor may it may i point to you that your encountered was taken on january five this exposure occurred in january two so even if we want to look after the exposure and that was by dr stalker at argonne lab who requested that mr hodges come into his office and undergo examination so for three days there was there was a significant causality it defies logic that his symptoms following this occurrence which were never complained of if you look at the old the old adage of the one tick of the clock at the one tick of the clock before this occurrence where were these symptoms where was mr hodges is this ability according to industrial commission definition as far as his ability to work all of that counts it n i think the argument is that he had no symptoms prior to exposure even if he was guilty of alcohol but that is correct that that is the argument here i mean the symptoms of white had it as nausea vomiting and the none of them were present so he would have to better understand the argument you don't need the medical you could rely on the good health and then after the incident or exposure you could become have symptoms but i was wearing it addition to making they have a logical argument do you goes on and on i mean as a matter of fact even when he reports if your honour's disregard entirely my argument of rescued or caught up in start of collateral estoppel with the u s department of labor report look what dr like and reports to the u s deal well in terms of the basis for their findings you don't have to rely on u s department of labor if you feel that their argument is it is is either stale or  it raises some other point but just look at what he rolled lies upon in terms of his basis for his opinion and he's in he explains exactly what it is and then that's why i say it defies logic and if we go to you know kind of bear does have a buys she does have mode is it evident you know but it's there it's out there as an x employ how does one give an opinion when it is suggested in the introductory letter to dr khan appear in terms of what she should find dr stocker clearly suggested the opinion that she should render in the introductory we reverse and if we go under man of the most weight of the evidence you know if you look at the standard of manifest weight if your honour's choose to look at manifest weight you know i don't know where their balls i guess it falls somewhere beyond between beyond a reasonable doubt and proponents and on the other that was a conclusion is fairly apparent and that's exactly it an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent because kind of peer failed to rely on pre morbid state which goes through just this often when he said about there is no symptomatology before this if there were no symptoms i can't even say that this was an aggravation and i'm not going to because there is no indication that it was an aggravation this is these are new symptoms new findings and i think the who've counsel for responding to find any more in the record were these exact symptoms were found in the record to the physicians before this because they weren't so the issue is very narrow here we have we have exposure it's simply the causation of those symptoms to the disability and under review this on her because an opposite conclusion may be reached based upon kind of bears ignoring certain facts clearly not basing her opinions on that and the totality of all the circumstances here of i agree with you had there been a diagnosis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism before this well this issue comes up only host occurrence around but but  there was never a diagnosis of alcoholism made or even a recommendation for treatment and most importantly interim look at the record look at how many years there i mean oh no your honor that was an extrapolation made by the arbitrator that that number was an extrapolation that the arbitrator made on his own i so disagree with that analysis that he made because somebody can say yes i consume ten of something and then you're going to multiply but but but again your honor i just want to emphasize that the disability occurred during a one time dramatic impact to the way exposure cases should say typically but more likely than not your car over time this was not this was in our god way out while they were involved they were done working out one of the eggs one of the testing rooms and they were exposed so this was a one time exposure first and foremost i want to point out this is and always has been a question of fact whether or not the pheno exposure was sufficient to cause these it's a question of fact and therefore this is the manifest we have the evidence review the examination she did review all of the material data safety sheets the industrial hygiene tests all of the medical reports from the days following this event none of the other doctor conclusion i'm not pointing to just the urine samples in the blood samples which arguably were taken a few days later where some of the substances were found in nobody's body petitioners or any of the other workers ok for the sake of argument let's say well another exact replica of that the mom and tested its contents to make sure that the levels could be enough to garner an exposure to harm anybody no levels were ever found sufficient so they commented on why reading on at least one or two individuals was elevated to twenty and that was found to be because they usually fall at the drinking of the beer that you're saying yeah i'm sorry i think i injured you quickly that doesn't affect feel as much as it affects the underlying aggravation reprises the condition if all of the levels tested are far under the acceptable levels for what would be considered an occupational exposure well but they haven't been based on  er in the accepted one letter from dr lekan to base their decision there was no opportunity for contrary evidence to be presented literally stop it without a boy and i don't believe so i just i want to make sure i address that and again ultimately and that's exactly what we have we have natural probable sequence of that we have exposure and start we have an event the exposure  plaints and subsequent complaints and disability and before the event there is a powerful ross it's a blank slate of anything with respect to complaints related to car max when nobody ruled out these other issues at the time of the year and count or even a year afterwards that was given in an evidence that position is is other substances that contain phenol and don't forget there was a demolition project in room two twelve in argonne national laboratory there was a demolition project over walt's whose this is a that the come from the walls and not only the thermometer because many people were exposed during the infant and subsequent to it one of the things that like an realize of time here is that other people were also exposed and also had the same complaints that counts that amounts to your decisions and looking at this case in determining that the arbitrator and the commission made a rony is findings they relied on flawed testimony and evidence here the evidence can be any clearer and i know it's hard to sit in the back of this room and listen