two thousand and four he was working as a german carpenter in a job for alka carpentry and the morning of that day he was cutting jack rafters which were wood components for the roof of the house on the ground with a seven and a quarter circular saw when he january sixteenth two thousand or he began to complain a right shoulder pain defender was referred to dr rot for treatment for the right shoulder on april first two thousand or did not return for any additional shoulder treatment after that plaintiffs on july seventh two thousand or so with restrictions of twenty five pounds lifting with the left hand and all working in temperatures under forty degrees claimed to accommodate those restrictions five he was then on park again until april eleventh two thousand and five there after return to golf up playing with the same restrictions the twenty five pounds lifting with the left hand and now working in temperatures under forty degrees he worked to get it all time until july nineteenth two thousand and five on july nineteenth two thousand and five defended was given additional restrictions due to an unrelated cubital tunnel injury due to the fact that it's after petitioner propositional was treating and not central to page hospital there are i think about fifty to one hundred pages of records with very detailed notes the nurses notes which don't anything during his stay there and he i believe he was there from between five to seven days because in the surgery and then he was was in the hospital inpatient for a couple days after that i mean there were no there was no notations whatsoever subsequent records that he was in so much pain while he was at the hospital that he couldn't sleep now it's interesting to me that petitioner was unable to sleep and they did make a notation of this however there is notations in the nursing notes of the fact that one day and that he had difficulty digesting different medications than you has taken but for some reason the fact that even though he was unable to sleep due to his right shoulder possibly could be but there was also a great deal of of contradiction between the different doctors as to what caused it there was for example well isn't that really the function of the commission i mean if this is all just credible on the commission confirm yes however but the reason that we have appealed the to the squabble is because we disagree with the conclusion that the commission came to when we believe that the manifest weight of the evidence  what do you have to show to do overturn what i have to show is the fact that can't tell you how is it that four different doctors can say i am i really can't tell you how this is possibly causing his injury one of them says well i think it had to be because you know that it was it was could be his injury was possibly caused by the got four neutral opinions if you want to put bits been added in the commission findings in favor of the claim so we're is the opposite conclusion when you basing your opinion the opposition is apparently what i get i guess what i'm saying is that the majority the vast majority states that he can return to work as a carpenter now he does say in a selective job placement however at the same time still a carpenter  got july nineteenth two thousand and five he was given additional restrictions that i had mentioned previously there for his lifting with his left hand went from twenty five pounds restricted a restriction to five pounds for stricture and he also had was given the additional restriction of no use of a ladder above six feet and what happened was when he was given that restriction which is unrelated to this case they were not able to accommodate his  restrictions anymore once this was lifted on august third two thousand and five and subsequent to petition to mr jakey receiving his in his job at step one stairways which is his job subsequent to his job but with ok i'll start with the ways french women a couple things that was in council did not point out first of all you have somebody that has this restriction of the twenty five pounds on the left hand and no working under forty degrees outside in addition after they made this recommendation or offer for him to come back to visit legible duty he had petitioner evaluated by dr nino in october two thousand and five and has when he put a restriction on the right shoulder  upper extremity as well had no lifting over ten pounds on bat in addition to no overhead lifting or repetitive use so you have an additional thing that occurred after they made that offer but the argument had ben even taking the right shoulder out view that if you look at the restrictions that he had twenty five pounds and the you know no working outside under forty degrees that he legitimately was not going be able to do what was expected as a journeyman carpenter and mr card out his supervisor at al has to fight a trial that you expect a journeyman carpenter for journeyman's wages he was not back working the full duty that he was doing prior to this accident they had a new interim carpentry work which was something completely different and very different activities that he was doing before he could not do the kind of hundred pound lifting and full outside during the winter covering the work he was able to do and when your honor asked was he working eight hours a day during this time when he made that job offer  prior to this this is clear in the record l to acknowledge that he was even though he technically was there eight hours a day he was only doing six hours worth of production so they acknowledge that he had lost two hours worth of her auction during the day and their response is well you know what we like the guy so much we're just going to let him keep working and ham for eight hours a day even though he's doing six hours worth of work and that's where our argument came in you know contrary to that you know realistically if the point of a wage pyramid is the say that this gentleman is going to have a loss in earning capacity aside from this one special magic employer apparently is going to poison body doing six hours worth of work in an eight hour day we just happen to be the employer he got in another company out there that's going to take a carpenter for unions wages at thirty six hours and twenty five cents an hour going to be able to have work for this gentleman and if you can't do any lifting with twenty five pounds on the lefthand can even be outside during the winter under forty degrees in addition doctrine you know has this restriction of ten pounds you get no overhead use and no repetitive motion so you take those things together again it's routers acknowledge this is a manifest week standard when you consider all of the evidence i don't see that the opposite result here is clearly apparent when we prove the first part of the engine terram and that he does have a diminished capacity he clearly cannot be a journeyman carpenter and we had the polling company says no doctor said that you can't be a carpenter but again you're talking about restricted carpentering it's not the full duty position that he was accustomed to doing and what the doctors did do is get a restriction it's then we had him a val that's only doing three quarters worth of the work full duty pay the case that i ordered a brief reliance elevator you're not supposed to be able to have sham jobs how that was looked at because it allows the employer in the ability to defeat the purpose of the wage impairment again we can kind of use common sense out of your arse i think and that's it you look at a twenty five pounder situation on the left hand this is a gentleman who was a carpenter twenty five pound restriction he emptied outside in the cold under forty degrees is and that was the point in the respondent even though they made this offer when he was going through this unrelated to technically in this case issue of the other restrictions when he was getting less hours and that's when he went to go find other work the employer did as we know in the arbitrator commission  and so so on those bases we do think when you're looking at it on a manifest weight standard that the commission should be upheld just briefly on the right shoulder and i think hopefully i can help clarify this a little bit i don't no we're reviewing different he's a lawyer doctor islanders and there are any doctor to me you know which is a point that wasn't brought up to begin with that was there i had me that affirmatively link that out they only found out one way or the other they didn't say that they couldn't determine causation there another company that would take him asking this court to survive with what there be another company the possible take him however where is the evidence that there is no other company that would take him there was no other evidence there is no evidence in the job search as there are as there is in both cases briefs the galley in any case and the reliance elevator case this is not a sham job as it might have been perceived in reliance where he was offered a job a mon after the operation hearing this was a job that was offered to him pretty much right after he left and right after he was he was given his wrist these additional restrictions they were taken off and he was offered another job with a logical reason why an employer would offer somebody actually admitted at trial that he had not done any additional research as to what a restrictive carpenter makes so therefore how can we possibly state that a restrictive carpenter if that's what we're going to label him as is an evil to make