first being whether or not a medical bill should have been awarded the second being whether or not the temporary total disability that was awarded should have been awarded and the last one being whether or not this man is a permanent hole disability candidate in light of the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of robert every job search or testimony from perform any but the most unproductive tasks for which no stable labor market exists and in that case as it was pointed out it was undisputed like you in this case that the claimant did not attempt a job search like in this case the what about the second element is referred to his skills and training it's obvious he can't perform or why i think it's speculative without someone telling us what work is available for him and i think that the initial burden of proving that he is an awful lot candidate is on him to prove that element of the case by showing a i've looked for work or b here's my expert who has interviewed and who has taken a look at the available labor market in his geographical area and concluded that there is no work for this for me and for the commission to have awarded  the employee permanent total disability benefits in this case is sheer speculation there's nothing upon which it is based that he in fact return to work for a while but this was he doing some work pick of the company for a few yes a little bit of background there were two cases at arbitration the first case is the only one that is before your honor's and he did return to work for a few weeks for the response and then he went off work and there was no word of t t t after he went off work t t d that was awarded did not start until i believe november of two thousand and five his stop working for us i believe in march two thousand and three would you make of the commission's finding well if that were true then why didn't they were t t d i think there's an inconsistency in that your honor he was sent home but they didn't award t t d so what do we make of that if it's you know i struggled as i reviewed the record review the commission decisions in this matter in particular i tended for your honour's the original decision in opinion on review as well as the correct decision entered in on you and i did that for one very  i was not handling the case at that time so i don't understand what happened but i do know that's improper what we do have a commissioner telling us that there was no  fact in our brief i did suggest a permanency award but again if you look at the evidence there's there was a recommendation for functional capacity evaluation that was never perform we don't know what this man's ultimate disability is and he had degenerative disc disease he had some abnormality on diagnostic m r i fasting but we don't have we never even got to a point at least of rocker that we know what this man's restrictions even be so i guess as you're saying there's insufficient evidence in the record to support the commission for absolutely absolutely there is there is nothing in there to support a permanent hold of sheer speculation he that was the occupational clinic that he was struck to go to there's just one record by the employers would be i'll take your word for that but that like i said i will concede that that could have been the the company doctor and now this first choice right but you still have three other docs and the one it hinges on is geisler because we know how that is incorrect it's undisputed he either was referred by this gentleman names here goes up or he was referred by his attorney to doctor's injury it depends on who you want to believe the petitioner of the doctor but doctor geisler there's nothing in his record to indicate how it was he got there and there's nothing of rocker to indicate a referral the only testimony or the only evidence of record is the petitioners testimony that he was referred to dr chrysler by his friend daniels here it goes so we have three separate choices of doctor bills that were awarded i believe were the ones from chrysler ins in from doctors in drug use that this man was released to work in august of two thousand and five he came back he didn't see doctors injured can tell after that point diagnostic testing never changed there's no change in his march twenty five two thousand sop the commission reviewed western in their original decision and in their corrected decision the weston case was there and it's not new law as it pointed out the quote from  record to substantiate that the their record was exploded because it wasn't certified we had an agreement when we were going to trial they were going to put all the records in trial counsel of the time not mr reagan so that there was a substitute arbitrator he wanted to continue once my guy wanted to go to trial i had no option so therefore they think took back all of their green lunch and anything that was insured if i never went in  he is a permanent total there was no evidence as submitted by the by the respondent that he isn't it was no opinion that they put forward that says that he's consultant telling telling me that my guy doesn't fit into the labor market is no problem with that but the sheet that you gentlemen and in either a trade or the commission can't decide without the labor did the math in an aggravated his condition he lifted he couldn't work after twenty minutes his back was back was it in severe pain what they did for him was payments for a one k they filled out his insurance disability forms for him because he can't write he shined he got disability insurance for a few months until the disability insurer decided it was a worker's comp fusion they cut him off and then they showed him the do no medical no conditional rehab no nothing is it is it your position even if we found the commission was in one suggested that he was an odd lot permanent because there was no very briefly in response to the argument regarding corrected decision to correct a decision in opinion on review that we received as the old this is the initial arbitrator's decision again i didn't handle this case until we were well into the circuit court so that's why i put that in there i think counsel agrees with me that what the correct average wage is that's why i did not address that before your honor's  demand does have an education if you look at dr geysers records i'll grant you it's not much of an education the records reflect that he was educated through the eighth grade in mexico i'm not going to try to tell your honest that that's the equivalent of even an eighth grade education to indicate that doctor's injury is a second choice of doctor i could go a lot of places with with geissler and the only thing i will say is that if geissler was referred by trevino why did it take  not totally disabled i would have to again review his records but i do know that he testified that there should be enough c e perform and i do know that at places he testified that i cannot tell you what his work and pasties are absent a functional capacity evaluation