that vocational rehabilitation plan question in this case is whether the decision of the illinois workers compensation commission ordering that specific rehab plan was contrary to the law in today i'm going to address two points which are also made in the first point being the birth of i'm sorry the standard of review before or and the second point deem the whether or not that the decision is to the first point i'd like to make and that's simply progress to the review before this court there were other disputed accident i'm sorry other disputed issues before the commission accident was in dispute no this was in dispute there was the issue regarding temporary total disability medical expenses as well as vocational rehabilitation and maintenance at the time of the case was decided it was a group of ruled on and one can be decision and but when i talk about the fact that today there are no dispute over the relevant facts before this court i'm simply pointing out that with regard to the vocational rehabilitation it's not the respondent position but the petitioner is not  previous line of work that is correct so then your company retains a smoky he's not authorized to provide any book we have services there was no with an assessment as to the belief of how you want this case well your honor of that position as i mentioned has changed since the initial onset of the case because initially the case accident notice where is in dispute the respondent felt that the petitioner did not have a com in and did not have noted and therefore was not in a position to war possibly vocational rehabilitation services and appeal before this court today it's only a question being challenged is the specific vocational plan  support a finding that the court of the commission erred you know wording a specific vocational rehabilitation planet and here the quote you know the facts are so you're saying that the claimant's testimony alone estab ishes he could never return to the line of work testifies that you know newscasts and credits if he completes his educational be able to work as a social worker doesn't really seem to be disputed by the evidence so why can't the commission do that as a matter of law they can't say that we're going to allow him going to order that he be allowed to complete his education that's they can't do that had the commission undergone the appropriate analysis it possibly could of but in this case there was commission which is very much on point in the matter here the plan presented by the petitioner intimate affair the supreme court is simply in the form of a rehabilitation program that appeared to be based on the wish of the did not write the brief but just you know the supreme court will say you have to include your trigger decision bendix and you know kind of hard to determine what the analysis was at least just all there is no plan here all we have this is the petitioners testimony that he wants to go to school to be a social worker there is no evidence that a degree in social work i use it when he's going to get a college education to become a social it if it's the basis of a plan but it's not a plan because what is it what does it entail of why are we looking for an associate degree and we're looking for a bachelor's degree a graduate degree  really looking for a ph d we don't know what type of job he's looking for we don't know what other criteria is necessary to have to find one job he presented no evidence to establish that there are jobs available  fisher was the guard had gone back to school work back to fiscal what johnny logan which is a community college based in southern illinois he had every intention to pursue an education at southern illinois week choose to go to school at a vocational program in another state in another jurisdiction there's nothing tying into a specific program by the same token you are going one side of the coin you're also saying if he doesn't go online to get a four year degree then you're not in the home what are you well but that's a question your honor we don't know if even needs a four year degree here he testified you know and can't they go with what they call his self directed plan he testif work as a social worker if you completed necessary course work in credits he outlined the afghans and you now so what's wrong with that because that is that is based only on speculation and conjecture he has not presented any evidence to show that jobs are available with a degree in social worker that he's pursuing we don't even know what degree looking at amoco oil versus industrial commission which outlines whether the factors in determining rehabilitation is appropriate and had there been a labor market survey or something entered into evidence to show what show positions available maybe you know when you went to law school did you know you were going to get a job you don't know and  vocational rehabilitation and under the workers of the station commission and in this case it's not what could be unfortunately i went to school to be a psychologist and here comes here i am today i'm not free to pray you know desire to pursue a degree in social work if not proven that there are jobs available that there are any there is no transferable skills analysis there is no evidence whether qualified whether a more remedial vocational rehabilitation program is the parable whether he could even work as a social worker based on his or her condition we only have the wish and desire of  it's a manifest way the evidence standard and under that standard they have a burden of proof and you look at basically what happened is that what was their vote when they knew they had a they if they have it as was clear that this all right first of all he was retained by the response and it basically looked like it was just sitting out in this parking about what the petitioners goals and desires were he didn't prepare may have the opportunity at that point prior to hearing to do something and they chose not to do it so what was that mark what what what what was the position to do he was less worse than the wind so he came formulated his own  degree he wanted to have a few of the folks who work with for for your program offer bat for the arbitrator's consideration as to what he'd like to do so he's left twisting in the way because obviously the company allegedly didn't follow up with their so called expert but how do you respond to his argument ok that's all well and good but this is all in the ramos speculation when you get into this self directed plan how do we know that this is ever going to turn in anything so what's your response well i think that based on his credibility and his desire in the arena and the steps he has taken that he would be successful at that would there possibl responded and said hey what this is the sky can't do this there will never ever able to discern why there was no follow up from the company or what the the consultant now i think i think i can answer there i don't know why i just i said it surprised me too because i mean i said i was this thinking that you know what are you guys going to do about this guy he needs some work you need something to do well i got to get instruction but i think what happened if you read his reports he reported frequently attain his only occasional power for a certainly if he was pursuing permanent total disability benefits under an arm not theory he would have done so whether or not mr me he had a labor market survey if there is not one in the record not involved in the case at the time and i'm only left to speculate that the reason they didn't pursue vocational rehabilitation services because they chose to dispute accident and notice the case was tried on a nine hundred eighty hearing the proper decision would have been to a war find that the petitioner was entitled to vocational rehabilitation and instruct the respondent to come up with a vocational relief a food plan and serve that is the difference here instead arbitrator awarded a specific left hand to this the supreme court's decision and hundred per corporation i reference was earlier is almost directly on point because in that case the supreme court but  had testified i wanted to finish up my education in that case he needed twenty eight hours of education twenty eight more hours to complete his education they found that the petitioner bold statements many hours he needed in the cough associated with obtaining the hours in this case we do know up we don't know how many hours he needs to get to school to get my degree we don't know what degree he needs to pay we don't know the cost of attaining the degree