the court just says i believe that the evidence in this case shows that the commission's decision in not awarding a wage differential is against the man of this weight of the evidence and made it a man of the whole word the commission increased it by five  percent the evidence that the commission cites too clearly shows that my client suffered from under restrictions that prevented her from going back to her job thereby fulfilling the first prong of a wage differential cases set up by the  and then with respect to the end i should point to the fact that that statement by the commission is and is despite the fact of the section twelve dr bill hires opinions with respect to the second prong of the wage differential case but the petitioners testimony was very clear that she had taken a second or she had taken a new job and she had taken a job for twelve fifteen hours and in the same day that she was taking this job is not the module system and this was after doing a job search that her lawyer paul wrote on it very same day and offered her position as a receptionist at the exact same rate of pay that rate of pay twelve fifty an hour is less than what she was earning in her old job as a a substantial period after the before the accident and after the claimant returns to work here the commission noted that your client had that look for new work since two thousand and three two thousand and four according to  pay and i would again point out that that was a rate of pay that the employer and offered her the exact same job and now when i think it's the perfect synergy now because you have both the employer and the employee agreeing on what keep her what her job capabilities are and what that rate of pay is now the fact that she doesn't work after that is simply because at that point the doctors take her off of work and they if so in this case the simple facts of the matter are that while she has is the seven months of time that she worked to show what her what her work capabilities were to show her impairment my argument would be that that once the employer had offered her years get a jab and then let's say three ways later they quit or something happens that is how do you prevent that from happening so i think that you know the the commission will always look at the facts and circumstances surrounding that job so if i'm an iron worker making forty two dollars an hour and i set off for a few years and then i go take a job at mcdonald's at eight dollars an hour and then you quit and i quit and say this is my time to wage differential rather substantial one the the commission doesn't have to doesn't have to accept that they can say that you haven't truly proven what you were capabilities are certainly responded by coming with the labor market survey and some testimony indicating that you know what you could actually be that person could make more but then i don't think the commission is stuck in that situation they can look at everything if i want is that what they did here well no i don't think so i i think the the but the commission the commission and you know what i would just follow up with is that in that situation of the iron worker if you taken a job at eight dollars an hour and on that very day the employer called up and said you know what we've got a job for you back in our company and we'll pay eight dollars an hour i think that's the best evidence of what that person's job earning capabilities are and i think that basis that would be enough for the commission to make that wage differential work so  have a prince for a wage differential over a specific loss award that that would be the more appropriate word in this this instance now having said that that is an argument based upon what the commission is rulings were as far as are restrictions and the evidence is far from loss of earnings and there may be an opinion and i'm trying to get a second bite of the apple by arguing that she's entitle hundred total disability i never felt that way we submit the evidence to the commission they've made their rulings i have to accept that and make my my arguments within them but the fact of matter is that in this instance  the commission had just simply stopped and said your client has suffered an aggravation of an underlying spawning elisa's condition and based upon that we are making this a work i wouldn't be here our uniform total disability because at that point we're just arguing about credibility of the witnesses and ability of the medical testimony and in this case that the commission goes further than that because it did they then start talking about the  know the basis of our of our communities are permanent all disability and the commission goes on to say that they know the prior to the c x and she had had some some conditions headaches and things like that and they want to say that those from out there that my client they found she suffers from fibro miles here and they're saying that that five miles her condition is now affecting her ability to work but they've they've thrown out that you know what that's not work related they certainly they certainly mention that in the decision and i am right i'm not here to downplay it have by any stretch of imagination i have to take a step back and ask the question has to have someone and i say that because if you look at the medical opinions when dr kayla's is this evidence is brought to his attention you know are were you aware of the fact that this client had some of these complaints wired to this accident and is the answer is no would have been important for you would make a diagnostic history existing condition so he's taken were the commissions look at these headaches and the conditions prior to the accident so this is a big deal because of the you consistencies dr calle has looked at and said doesn't change my opinion dr patrick is presented with kill wasn't he told by your client that he did not have any of these symptoms prior to the two thousand and two accident and then he changed his opinion on causal connection because then we find out that he acknowledged it's and now it's later isn't a case where they found her to be incredible and zeroed her around and made no word in the case instead of the arbitrator said despite all of this stuff she still suffered a compensable accident she suffers a medical condition get to claim and say he's a said today he has no symptoms prior to the election exit at all and then other medical doctors and other providers and people he's saying he suffer from all these headaches and all these other severe symptoms circumstances about the headaches and what dr pepper nexus is the headaches is is you know a bit of a misnomer that it's not necessary for the diagnosis of five miles you the fact that she had a afford it doesn't change the opinion about the diagnosis of five miles from and so what we're left with is in this opinion you've got the only medical evidence that sits out there problems of it is that in order for the wage differential to come into effect this supposed to the decision that was a very detailed decision that was awarded by arbitrator allison and a pal by the commission is that determination that she could not return to work as that's listened to although she did go out and find a job and the heat would be at the eye doctor clinic for twelve dollars an hour when she quit that job she quit that job because know and her chronic fatigue syndrome saying because she had missed all the time from work so we we believe that the word of the arbitrator and a commission and should be a healthy other