odd but firm total i'm not abandoning this position however i do recognize that some of the video is counter intuitive what you might expect of an individual who is a prime total the video shows him cutting grass writing a motorcycle things of that nature and so when you would view the video there's an emotional component to it that i think is counterintuitive but if you look at it critically  the respondents spent years and years of surveillance it seemed only show that he could do house like household chores these little video clips were short periods of time and i believe that most of these videos are old and that the psychologists role was to determine if the depression was related to his chronic pain and and there were these other issues that came up the psychologist made no opinion as to his physical physically capable of performing it demanding even in the commission's decision it mentions facts findings of fact which support a wage differential is difficult to climbing bleecker stairs he walks with the land his son has to help him stand  it with without abandoning the point i previously made it there is support for the position that this is that wage differential case even the respondents vocational rehabilitation counselors point out that  job market between a range of ten dollars and fifteen dollars an hour for someone in his position so i think from the posture of the case it appears the commission should election that we can honestly say he's never weighed that i mean from a pretty fickle standpoint can you really expect the petitioner who's seeking parm in total benefits to make an election for wage differential versus percentage of awards no mean there kind of victory i mean or we're going to force him to make alternative arguments and argue against themselves correct you're right he would put you in an awkward position and one that you sure don't want to advocate this specially if if you believe there is some evidence that he is he's a firm taiwanese basis but obviously when you look at all the morning to justices may please the court i am john campbell here on behalf of us of holland the appellee in this case morning counsel addressing the first argument of my point in summary i understand you spent more time on his the logical what happened in the trial we started a trial judge said i think this guy's capable of work to stop the trial will focus i was reluctant to do that because we had offered folk in two thousand and eight and the gentleman refuse inconsistently said i want my job back in usa hi i'm michelle king why in your brief before this court you responded to an issue that was never raised but you didn't respond to the issue that was reduced the reason i dressed it in the context of focus i don't think he has an accurate measure of how to award wage differential with any particular number my fear was that the court would do what the arbitrator did and beginning which was say remand this and now go folks this guy again and that and then we would find the wage differential measure meaning does he make fifteen dollars an hour twenty dollars an hour minimum wage or wherever it may be that was my fear because it happened at the arbitration level we started this trial many years ago and was stopped for that reason i was frustrated by it but we did it and that's what led to five an hour which would eliminate a wage differential you know what he says here stabile a good market a position in which he could ten to fifteen dollars an hour you gave him the evidence that he  agency but they said the high end of the income earning scale so you're not beholden to ten to fifteen dollars an hour i know that stuff i testified that at one point he also testified to a higher income earning capacity as well my other argument i want to make this before i finish we don't know how much he can make because he continu misled everybody not just doctors and therapists mr stefan with regard to his capabilities but was after all vocational efforts after we put him through computer training because he alleged he didn't have any but i found out he's operating ken's computers which is run by his family he actually tried to allege it was his wife's company which is hilarious his name is ken one hundred so i decided from the chuckle you get from that i found it embarrassing that he would suggest it's his wife's company but he had to admit he replace hardware and software and computers  town that he was working as a trustee the whole time claiming he's totally disabled and we spent time putting him in introductory computer courses it's infuriating and i think it's insulting that also would stand up and say you can only make fifteen dollars an hour we don't know how much he can make we don't he doesn't have to look for work he doesn't have to have work the only question is is there evidence in the record that it has to what he could earn his songs capable of learning in some suitable profession so now the question becomes maybe you could go to of thirty some doubt a person could be capable of working your thirty some dollars an hour but i don't want to be mislead fifteen to thirty dollars an hour is not it was not applicable word for people who have lost income earning capacity if we're talking about fairness this guy's the heavyweight champion of the suction i think if you read the commission decision they say about five times he deceived his doctors he  misleading he deceived psychological terrorism and he deceived that stuff and by fighting computer skills my argument is we can't measure how much he can earn because he didn't even tell that stuff on the trip all ed could testify to was what he was told by mr le in terms of his skills we didn't know he had computer skills actually before the trial when i uncovered this yet the judge said what again i'm afraid this court may do is say well is a computer skills great no go get him a job once i'm done i'm done with what he may be able to do what else is he cited in the g case also seventy five percent a man is one of the highest p p d awards i've ever seen and this is my area of concentration so i think the commission was saying to themselves we can't quite measure this perfectly because of this guy's a level of deception so what is fair seventy five percent of man was weaker than two hundred thousand dollars we do expect we don't know what the commission was thinking about wage differential because they never mentioned i understand they didn't even yeah yeah but i think in their in is even if you can't drive a truck the way he used to can this court honestly say we know what he's capable of doing based on him hiding the fact that he has computers that that's i think it's a very big deal you know the counselor and you say you don't have computer skills and you  the charade of going through a introduction computer course and that alone should be enough to demonstrate that the individual who is is hiding what his true skills may be worth as a trustee i don't give a litany of things in my surveillance i know the court is well aware of it but the combination of all that i think it points to a conclusion by the commission it was very fair they have discretion to do that they don't have to award a wage differential i don't know the case that says you must especially when seventy five percent both the vocational experts that respondent prior indicated that the range was ten fifteen dollars if you look at mr campbell's brief on page sixteen he comments that mr bigelow who work for m puts the likely range of petitioners return of the earnings between ten to fifteen dollars an hour so i think this projection of thirty three dollars based on that limited market survey is not accurate i think it was  are he was opining this guy could or on between fifteen and thirty three dollars an hour om  juror he didn't want to say that the claimant would be employable between fifteen and thirty six dollars an hour because that could be quote somewhat misleading the only opinion he actually gave was the quarter