according to this exhibit and the exhibit you met was the sticky lation sheet the following manner sir in dispute t t t is that correct he asked of the attorneys in the room and counsel stated that's it the commission relied upon that limitation when they failed to order vocational rehabilitation funding was not an issue based upon the stipulation  vocational rehabilitation this issue was not in dispute at trial yet council and commission seem to want to make it an issue after the fact will have maintenance comes after an admin might point and as would be conceded by the arbitrary length and the commission that m m might point had to be at some point the day he went back to work even on a strictly duty or the day he left job after his terminations at some point there even though isn't a specific finding we haven't and then my point so after that we have a maintenance possibility now if you're talking about council brought in state the woman that's not a job for which there is a stable labor market well that's evidence which could go to three things that could go to the evaluation of a potential client total that could go down as part of the evidence that might be used in discussing a wage differential neither of those issues were on the table at trial the nature of said was not an issue the only other thing to go to is whether this was appropriate as part of some type of a claim created or group directed vocational rehabilitation plan because if if we're snotty we're saying that this isn't this gentleman's permanent job and we're not addressing the permit see at this point then that evidence is only relevant to see if this was an appropriate vocational rehabilitation program yet the commission no look at the vocational rehabilitation issue because it wasn't on the state sheet but they will award minutes standing alone in  vacuum essentially stating this  prior full employment we're not going to look at any evidence on both of these awarded maids what the evidence at trial had been and information that the respondent had placed into evidence maybe it was determination then would automatically preclude him from getting maintenance if we're saying this possibly from getting maintenance then are we talking about a vocational rehabilitation situation i presume and then my understanding that then what we the discretion of the commission to pick one and exclude the other as a matter of law if the commission is basing its decision based upon the terminations upon an inference that they're drawing from a statement which lacks any foundation that statement is tantamount for them to draw an inference from that pure speculation and conjecture and therefore as a matter of law there's no evidence to support the conclusion that they came up with here that this was not a valid determination the statement was from the british news operations manager and there's no foundation for it there's no support for the that might lead to the conclusion that the commission reached that perhaps they wanted to get rid of this person nothing at all you have to probably take five six seven steps to get to that point restricted duty as much as possible yet what precludes someone from coming in and saying you know when something happens when someone quits when somebody gets fired whatever it may be what precludes them from getting an axe but to say well that was never stable market for that the first place where where is our liability enduring safeguard we have is it is the system itself and it is the evidence that we get to put forth and in this case the commission limited the evidence to t t d by their part that's true but the entire border is it important notion that the entire hearing was conducted with regard to ongoing benefits they claim as you know that they were finished with him because she was fired for cause finished with the claimant because he was fired for cause i never thought that was true regardless of the outcome of the interstate  never believed that the man was fired because they still don't know why they fired him or they fired him because this is the commission said it is an accommodation an attempt at accommodation noble a noble accommodation which failed and it failed because it was unworkable to begin once we have a good and valuable employee by their witnesses testimony a defacto supervisor reached drawing vises other people on how to handle the job who pins up who holds up this pin up a calendar swimsuit calendar lights off a chain of events which leads to his terminations because she won't sign a document that he asks to take to his attorney the supervisor runs lady supervisor runs into the men's locker room and confronts him face to during this one year accommodation he had been back to work for one year over time never performs any overtime after the accident he's earning lots they have to not only pay him his wage for producing less work which he is but they also have to pay his coworkers his coworkers have to wait on their timecards every week the time they spent helping the claimant because that's time away from their job it costs the employer money he on the other hand is frustrated because his arm is still in him at the end of every day he can't make the wages that he used to make he's not getting the work out that he used to get out and it's not the same quality it boils over in this ridiculous incident the incident meaningless swimsuit calendar which leads to a one day suspension which the employer will not let him take to the different target or she testifies that the following monday after the incident he called who was the only expert in the field it was called and he testified that number one the promenade a job at the claimant was doing at the time of the terminations does not exist in the real world world it's it's a made up job said it's t t d and dispute maybe i took it in context to mean that permanent she is not in dispute but it's making its nappy tt's not totally disabled he is capable of employment no one ever suggested otherwise he is them and i medically his employment condition is in shambles out the asli but he's not getting any better or any worse he can't return to the previous employment but he certainly that is not disabled it's also a quirk of the word it it makes perfect sense of the real and that's the reason that we all step in and he laid out in the national guidelines and the commissioner of the commission hit it right on the head it's not in a terminations for clause it's not in the terminations because they're malicious employer or he's a poor employee but it was that they were weary of accommodating the employer rule one out of business closed up shop would they still not be liable for assisting him in a job search or paying him while he conducts his own job search when he was doing a position that is not a real position in the general workforce and that's why reproduce that testimony at trial thank  of that technical failing so it is very important council to discuss a number of facts with you and kind of give an eight b b to c storytelling type situation this is the type of fill in that you did in his story in order to get to the conclusion that the commission came to about what the reason was for the terminations on the facts in the record it's not there there's no evidence of a boiling over because of the situation this is what counsel has told story that's not what the record indicates council indicates at steffen is the only evidence that talks about the labor market etc cracked that's it sister doesn't testify at all the commission fails to address the issue of vote and they say otherwise affirmative dot the opinion of the arbitrator who found at st arbitrator's decision or the commission's decision the commissioner's decision who affirmed the arbitrator in all other respects and that was one of the