that he was involved then he testified that after the first one he started having pain that's regards to his right he testified that after the second mine is the blister on his right grow right great toe star seeping out and he started to sell to tweet after the third one and he testified that a few days after the third one is right great toll was bad enough to the point that he was experiencing sharp in going down up his leg that he had to seek standard the best way to get the subject at hand be the best way to diagnose a frostbite is physical examination now she also agreed that the three exposures petitioner claimed are the type of a frostbite the supply of the blood supply to that toll is not good and somebody is more prone to infection now just going back done to men if a dog lick someone's tall they don't have a blister they don't have a frost bite what's to happen i think it's going to happen so if pete even if you follow dr loving it even if he had a blister and the dog leg did the exercise head back caused his need he never according to the report he claimed to be would do this truck with this defective temple and he never drove that truck according to the records there were interviews they specifically found that he testified that ninety nine point five percent of the time not hundred percent of the time if there is an issue with the truck drivers trucks malfunction that don't work or has some it petitioner himself testify that he spoke to somebody whether up heating problem was reported or not because she does not know that the show never felt about a work order so just because there was no work order doesn't mean that there was nothing wrong with the heating of the body part of this is that there was a problem with the frog to get a blister  that blister but me around fifty can not cause osteomyelitis he didn't say that both of these situations are mutually exclusive just because one thing cost something doesn't mean that the other thing cannot cause so become mission and respond and his arguing and denying this the second act today is he never settled for no problem if it will he never said that and the other issue that they're also disputing and the commission noted in their decision about the second accident is that you can claim to be that notice all the act then but then also you the fact of it never got notice to dispute act that i agree that no it is an accident are two very separate issues but in this case you can if you already stipulated to should regard as we kind of in reviewing the record i think it's fair to say that it is somewhat of a convoluted case in terms of fact patterns in the allegations and so forth there's obviously an accident issue and there is a causation issue the commission has done really a great job through this court and very even handed lead describing all the evidence that was submitted going through all the arguments for accident assigning express credibility findings for the of the witnesses and further expresses stating you know how is the commission weighing the evidence to come up with a solution or the outcome that they decided  the petitioner has a higher hurdle to overcome at the level because you must not only show that they're of commission was wrong and against the manifest weight of the evidence one of the justices its during the the rear our argument that the the commission found that the employee lacked credibility and so there is no explanation of it's difficult to pin down based on the various allegations that have been made to look at the application for adjustment of claim the accident is repetitive exposure to crossfire leading to information that is what the five and regards to you know even if let's say there was of a work related blister and then they and i analyze it from that perspective as well they did but they didn't and they said that even if there was a work related  that i can't speculate why the why they would do that other than to other than to state that i think they saw that as how the of the evidence and said well you could maybe argue this but even if we did argue this we would accept all that and bit better your opinion w commission came to they say that there is although the three main doctors opinions do have some discrepancies between them there is overlap between the three of the knee and first they all came to the person who allows tode it gets to that point that those will all actions don't break causation chain and i have a hard time coming up with a hypothetical this summer you're saying it has to be as i asked opposing counsel it has to be some limits to the bounds of the dump when you're you're only going into the pleadings so bit and it may touch upon the question that you were trying to ask the regards to what is the of mechanism where the mechanism is repetitive exposure to cold that's what but i don't think they logically found that here either that's why i'm arguing manifest fate of the evidence i think even the big arson if i sense that and they just denied and based on the fact that there was no bar order they ignored testimony that say if there could be that there you know there was a problem said the move could have been made of a green cheese too i mean what could be incentives the question is what is in the it would do one use there is no record of any defective heater he didn't drive a truck one fifty nine and all you specially when he cleaned you own it you simply didn't believe he was telling a story that there was no they chose not to you know that he was equally available to you there's a little bit first of the missing witness but with her if i'm not mistaken here i believe that simon testified that he was still working for city of peoria at that time and here and i think the commission's finding off credibility is against the met if it's made of the evidence because if you look at the evidence as a whole the incident where you're talking about where they said that you know we don't do that he says we don't do that