review of the evidence in this case will show that a decision opposite of that reached by the commission is clearly apparent in this case the spoiler asked that you consider two main issues when evaluating the evidence in this case what if any permit restrictions should be implemented the restrictions that were suggested were for no lifting greater than six then ten pounds no greater than four hours walking or standing and  squatting finding pushing pulling and reaching overhead only occasionally now your honour's the results of these the basis for these restrictions was a functional capacity evaluation results of this test easier to tell the evaluate are noted multiple signs of symptom magnification now so the magnification is noted rather frequently when a person who is undergoing an f c e is trying to prevent themselves from being hurt even more while performing the c e activities or has some type of guarding of their activities again either due to pain or due to the fear of pain but that wasn't the case in this  e of the opinion that interview was prominent in nature and if he was not employable what do you make of them well first of all i would agree the injury would be permanent nature but the focus is going to be whether as a result of the did not have the opportunity to review any of the restrictions that were adopted by dr park following yes and he also agreed that he did not have any expertise in the area of vocational rehabilitation so because of the record shows that mr edmunds complained of at times leading to sleep more than twenty four hours in a row i will in the sense that there was never an explanation in the medical records nor any explanation given by d mr edmunds had told him that he was actually feared for mr edmunds safety because of the issues that he had with with his sleep patterns or is it important this time troops when a little bit of background regarding what mr eddins did at least before  accident as as kind of an extracurricular activity he was involved with an outfit known as food you outfitters that was a hunting guidance or so and they would take clients all around the state of illinois into other states even other countries a sleep study was ordered to find out what it was that was causing mr edmunds to have these unusual sleep activities and mr evans never went to that appointment so while it is true that if you look at mr edmunds after the fact after by the employer in this case so you have dr grant who says i don't believe he can return to work but he never really looked for any work that he testified that you look for zero jobs to find out what mr edmunds level of employee ability was firstly if you look at the activities of adrian heard before rendering her opinions she was presented with all of the evidence regarding situations that he had the medications that he  took and she actually found a dozen jobs in the geographical area where mr evans lives were he was not only followed by but where was able to for four of those jobs within the physical restrictions that doesn't see you arguing now understand your clearly they have the right to do it self if they choose which is strictly within the province under the law they have to list as part of billing believability of the witnesses and resolve the conflict and medical testimony which they did to witnesses on one side or the claimant who on the other side they were in favor of the claimant based on the layman's witnesses and their argument is what it what they got it wrong and so we should be a person because they got it wrong but my argument is the basis so it's just within the province of this court to say that the manifest weight of the evidence supports a finding contrary to what people reach even though the commission is given the first opportunity and is is so this court has the opportunity today to look at the evidence and say based upon the foundations given for these different arguments the positions of these different experts who was provided with the most significant according to the evidence when the undercover investigator for the company went out there was no surveillance video of the claimant the investigator admitted he did not have the video showing the claim and one thing he was unable to find anyone wh you taken us out of the state and out of the country after that right under what they called a guy different type of a composite like the system there was a phrase for why he was he was the guy he was he was guiding he was he was just assisting couldn't do things like put out decoys because he couldn't carry things they fazed him out of the clubs he was a very very good hunter almost legendary was the president of the national wealth or federation brought that organization the southern show that yes any tears all through of his lumbar spine he has fibrosis throughout his lumbar spine dr park indicates that post operative at least the second time he had permanent nerve damage there which is a ten pound rifty lifting restriction and only very limited physical physical activity randy walks with a limp uses a cane uses a cane to get out of the chair uses a cane to sit down and chair oftentimes uses a wall to walk down the hall he takes m s content they takes morphine they in addition weekly randy edmunds goes to sleep for much of the day he cannot predict whether it's going to be a monday tuesday wednesday thursday or friday when he's going to need six medication so that just t he could work if you overlay that with all the medications he's on how it effects his sleep out effects his mental activity this concentration consider all those days he's not employable because he can't answer the bill day in day out week in week out the testimony at trial was that it took randy almost five days to paint for shutters five days to be one chair the reason for that is he has to go lay down if you read carefully in the transcript you know we showed up for trial at nine a m trial starts at three thirty there's testimony that during the day while he was waiting trial he was laying in the back of a pickup truck testified she didn't even know he was on these medications and then she recounted that ok yes she did know about medication this didn't take into consideration their side effects she didn't talk to dr wachter she didn't talk to randy edmunds personally and the twelve people or the twelve employers in southern illinois that she came up with as a market survey she didn't tell them that randi used a cane she didn't tell them that randi lived she didn't tell them that randi was on these medications and she didn't discuss with them the fact that he was going to have to be accommodated in terms of well you may not show up on monday or tuesday in fact she said in her testimony cross examination that it's all yours would expect and it for you to be able to answer the bell on a who was hired to come from michigan to southern illinois to video surveilled my client and no video surveillance was ever put in he claims he booked the hunt with my client he claims he confirmed the hunt with a certified letter and a check and brought neither to try significantly at the close of of evidence and can file a motion to a judge i just need a little extra time to submit these really my point which is the standard is a manifest way there has to be a clearly apparent opposite conclusion i'm not a perfect lawyer i probably could have done a better job think i can pass this finish line  c never dealt with a person with that much nerve damage that much scar tissue that much any tears just twenty years i've been doing this i've never known anybody have that much of jack does abnormality by m and i would suggest to you that that's what commission  magnification is a result of this individual trying to manipulate and that's something that i think you should see now where as i read a person does not have to be restricted to complete disability before permanent whole disability can be afforded i think it needs to be the goal of any property system such as the court system in this case to get people back to work we need all possible and in this case it's at all pos edmunds for not seeking work the employer has put forth an effort to find him another type of job to find any other type of activity that he can perform and mr edmunds has not taken any of those steps also just to clarify one issue mr byrd i was presented with all of the restrictions that mr edmunds was on and she listed all the medications that he was taking with in her report prior to retrieve her so i asked this court  to review the evidence in this case and though i agree that this court is not to sit in the position of just second guessing the findings of the mission what it can do is determine if there is they manifest weight of the evidence contrary to the taint such shots were found agreed that the representative from corvo didn't perform a physical evaluation of what was necessary she was presented with information that showed that this don't have high school education with some post secondary education that you had managerial skills had help managerial positions before and that he had a firm grasp of the english language and was able to handle the job that she found for what it was defective he takes medication problem one where he would just simply fall asleep we know it was significant enough that a friend of his was worried about his safety because of the sleep now what the extent of it was we don't know because he didn't keep a point before this is what we know sleep for twenty four hours right how can you hold it down if you fall asleep for twenty four hours right well there's several options there it could be that he would have to have this medication altered there's ways to work around that and then i guess that's what the employer saying in this case then we need to be trying to find ways to work around the problem in this case rather than throwing up our hands and saying forget it don't even try because that's what a permanent disability work in this case