may please the court counsel my name is david been overlooked and i represent the petitioner i thought charles robinson in this matter i may briefly summarize the procedural history of this matter was first turned by an arbiter of the illinois workers compensation commission and eleven finding that mr robinson did sustain injuries that arose out of an in the course of his employment with meridian express on january eighteenth two thousand and eight at his present condition of ill being is causing related injury occurred in that accident at meridian express responsible for thirty six thousand one hundred forty two dollars and thirty five cents in reasonable necessary medical expenses for the treatment of that injury and then mr robinson was due as of the date of hearing one hundred sixty two and six seven suites of temporary total disability benefits the statement of the decision of the commission its opposition of the testimony and evidence submitted at the initial arbitration hearing on march third two thousand and eleven was sufficient to support the decision of the arbitrator which was in turn unanimously affirmed adopted by a panel of commissioner circuit courts anything above the claimants credibility the circuit court did the circuit court judge found our that did discuss that she found issues with the credibility of the claimant the arbitrator in their initial credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence that is presented if there is sufficient evidence to support their determination then their decision cannot be said to be against the manifest weight of the evidence the commission is given the standard of determining whether or not a party has the claimant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that there that their injury occurred as claimed and that it is related to their employment summarize the evidence in favor of the claim what was the evidence that supports this award the evidence that is in support of a war that was ordered by the commission and by the arbitrator is the consistency in the testimony of m was dazed for a moment and was eventually able to get back up and complete the tasks that throughout the day he had difficulties with making further deliveries that he called into dispatch to report the incident and at the end of the day on completing notified them again of the incident and went home still in pain still with difficulties with walking and moving his legs he treated himself over the way to go to hold back over the plane with his testimony consistent with the history of the accident in the work  it is he he gave credible testimony that over the weekend he treated in self that he was unable to perform his job has on monday was sent home after the next week he attempted still to provide and so home remedies w soaking and home medications before he eventually determined that this wasn't going away he presented to the emergency room the following weekend so one of the claimants treating physician in the employer section twelve examiner said the additional as far as the temperature total disability and medical benefits these weren't even addressed at the circuit court the circuit court's decision stopped when when there was a finding that there was no connection to any accident  but again here the evidence does support the commission's decision awarding the temperature you want to you want to reverse the decision and reinstate the decision of the commissions are correct yes in its entirety ok thank you  reasonable belief reasonable man reasonable in the circumstances and slid it over to him and i asked him what you know what's it all about he said my dean at northwestern told me this twenty five years ago and that's what your deans telling you it's a heart of everything that you'll be back to see what's reasonable and what's rational and i was reminded that last night when i was looking at this because the facts are overwhelming and in the favor of the employer in this case the only real hurdle that i can see in preparing for this is this against memphis where the evidence stand and when reviewing all the cases that gets thrown around throwing around and thrown around if you really parse that down and the cases that are cited here in the cases cited by the circuit court and counsel in their brief visit it's it's reasonable inferences from the facts the from province of the commission to sets the credibility witnesses resolve the conflicts in the elements and assign weight according to the evidence so then and then the role of the court then is to determine if it's contrary to the or he was supposed to take an empty trailer to a customer in the suburbs he found truly begin to pick it up slip backwards sat on the ground for a while felt the pain got up pollution off into the truck and proceeded to check the trailer out he then drives to the customer's place of business when he gets there he informs the customer he's having trouble who with his leg out of the truck he informs the shipping office if the customer is a place of business about the accident the shipping clerk at the place of big customers place of business then takes a golf cart driver subiaco so he get into his truck the truck is will hidden he case the truck out he delivers it he then calls the dispatcher again advices him how he was feeling and then where does he go off he goes to another stop in chicago heights picks up a wall and brings it back to chicago said that he was suspended from work on that following monday because it showed up late for work his own testimonies and showed up at eight thirty or nine when the records contradict it contradicted that he started on the subject bajo mentions nothing to do with the question of that that if you look at the route the the evidence is not a sufficient have an entry foundation in the record and that this should be overturned the commission's decision overturned in justice friends decision should be thinking is sufficient evidence between the testimony of petitioner between records in the medical evidence to support his account the the evidence supporting another idea it may be there it may be possible that there is another reading the determination of his credibility was made by the arbitrator and by the three commissioners that unanimously agreed that he was credible that is the excuse they can say that all day long but if there is no basis i  believe that that you have touched on this that whether or not they specifically agree with with the credibility there is no evidence to them to actually counter that you fell down at work and all of the all of the medical records do point to an incident as he described it falling down at work on the eighteenth of january as causing the condition that he is suffering from now and causing a need for him to require further treatment and time off