at some point though the commission can't have unfettered discretion to come to that conclusion but the commission did in this case why this case is different from international paper and the other cases cited of course one of april first is that the commission said the parties are ordered pursu to section seventy one ten of the regulations to develop a plan to take the petitioner off the methadone as part of the pain management treatment under medical benefits which seventy one ten includes the commission then goes on to suggest that once that's done medical treatment which was still appropriate but yet untried in this case the commission specifically said go back and try to and provide a plan under seventy one ten to take the employee off the methadone and the problem of that i found the case on these facts to be honest with you your honor i now agree though i think we need to look at guidance on cases that have ruled that you can't force medical treatment on an employer because here's here's the flaw in you with this thing and i understand you're very passionate situation and the reason why what why i think that that you can't have just a blind general rule that locational a general order of granting vocational rehabilitation benefits can't be appealable and appl and there was no in january two thousand and seven and there was no response to the offer instead the case was set for trial and all issues by the employee really rejection of the plan in addition if you look at the medical records with dr what we're looking for is an opportunity to see whether or not the dissent in the commission decision is valid and that is what the commission has the two the two commissioners have ordered has already been offered and tried review and or the circumstances where in the instance where the commission orders benefits which cannot be mandated on the employee that is review board with an eye that the decision is appropriate because if you if that's not reviewable then puts the parties hobson's choice we have no we have no recourse but to go back and prepare a seventy one ten plan with no evidence that it's wanted by the employee and that's the point  and in that case the supreme court decided that there was no authority for him that the supreme court addressed the young men actually medical improvement issues and of course the best temporary total disability and i believe that we are dealing  this court either at the temporary total is correct escorted by the commission they still row has uncertainty was like things can go on from here but if we simply pounce back at the commission will be coming back in three years i will i don't know what was the ro rolled on the temporary total disability question presented by the employer i think that the authority for that is the caterpillar case which by the way goes on to say those are to consider a reading and whether or not the commission could or back before the arbitrary yes we've been back there and will be up here because they will have again and a possible stepanek that i don't know that i can get i may get penalties that there will be an or there will be an argument about whether or not this was ever proper so if we have a example discussed exactly that carved out the exception if you will said if is a temporary total decision that this court will reveal it and i think that's consistent with with most all the decisions that have come out we have a temporary coalition we have not been certainty we have some direction and i think that the court has jurisdiction to look into that temporary total disability issue i think it also best to look into medical and but but certainly the the temporary took disability the last case that i found on europe at all but i think they have the authority i mean people in here t t d had been suspended we had asked for seventy one then and sent a letter seventy one ten rehab we had asked several times for pain the commission carefully decided to do the right thing and i can't say that what they did was wrong i don't like it that it took so long i don't like losing that type of approach permit total work but the commission looked and did some social engineering here they looked at a man for thirty seven years old who was eager to work and they said we're not going to let him out to pasture you'll find substance in this life if we order something else that's not what i was are our goal this year this time money and that's what we did i feel like the change but i understand that it may be the best thing from the spillover oh it needed it getting off this methadone if he can and he doesn't want to it may be that that gives us five meetings i think that that's what the commission was frightened i'm incorrect is that if the issue is temporary prob disability whether it's under one section or another and i certainly don't question your honor which section you found it under but a temporary total is an issue i believe that the cases including back poll that if if you consider whether or not the period would by the commission for temporary told disability benefits is appropriate the way they get their decision is by finding employees a type of pain management the form of methadone ministration so it