the admission of michael to candy who is a member of the bar in good standing of the highest part of the state of wisconsin i have personal knowledge of his credentials and his skills i'm satisfied that he plain that the claimant has recovered fully from whatever it was that was the disabling condition are thought to be a permanently disabling condition it turns out three years later that there's plain evidence that there's been a full recovery have authority under the regulations to say that the person now does not have a condition and would that be a ruling that could be justified  no benefit and inadvertently check a box that granted benefits so that it was akin to a clerical mistake there's no question the merit of the record with such that it was a mistake a clear and indisputable proportion but nonetheless whether or not this condition adversely affects the ability of your client to perform his work if you can get a disability retirement as i understand it unless the disability you have adversely affects your ability to perform right absolutely by let's assume that the first time through someone comes to o p m and they supply evidence that shows yes or e no question about it disability but the person that seeking the this is larry karma makes no showing whatsoever that the disability showing me that there riginal a was a determination that there was an adverse effect in the workplace it looked at me as if what the record was showing me was that there was nobody bothered or no one looked at the question of whether the disability adversely affected performance in the workplace until this last go around when someone that o p m looks at the situation and said well there's no  appendix he said lastly you're in the very end of her letter left for your medical records did not show that your service deficiencies were caused by your medical condition isn't that her statement of the same thing that the he points out again that mr vegan merit reviews are not indicative of an individual who is unable to function in the workplace and agency seems to be saying to o p m in in in deteriorated and he's right by my see their bottom line conclusion the knocker saying the symptoms one of affected his work performance during the time one hundred ninety four to two thousand and one the during that time very he's receiving  flu i would've gotten hundreds still getting a ninety five how is he incompetent for an able to perform his job during this time he's getting the period performance evaluations he was obviously an exemplary employee so during that same disability retirement and they're going to use the air regulation as the basis for the revocation of the previous grant they have to tell you what the air was for and if you know you're saying that that  disability and you're saying you don't know whether that was o p s o p m ground and not you simply would like i suppose your argument is that the decisions are reached and is wrong because there was no state which involves predicated as an exception for mental condition does that exceptional player in other words do we have the authority that meant all would deny us and non mental cases to review let me ask you that same question the you're familiar with the statute that meant always predicted aaron and the statute if i recall it correctly and says that while there is a general rule which meant all construed to bar review by this court of findings with regard to disability that that general rule does not apply in cases of mental condition disability that is my recollection correct   indefinite suspension for one reason or another seems to me not to be a rational deficiency in work that you will compare that to the physical condition well i i think that's the point your  opposite and why did you grant and grant grants and wasn't reconsidered on several occasions are you saying that the agency the erroneous plea not only granted but nude on their seems to me not contrary to intuition that you could have a circumstance in which someone had some kind of let's say latent psychological problems which would be so exacerbated by a traumatic event such as being arrested for a serious felony that the person's ability at that point to continue the work setting aside whether they were taken off the job or not but that their ability to work would just be totally compromised isn't that essentially what the finding the initial finding was that setting aside the reason that is to save the rest  efficient and useful service either in their current position or another position whether or not mr gaghan was disabled the merits of whether disability did or not act workplaces off the table and what you're seeing gone and we've been we've been talking about something over which we have no there's no reason you should but if you just happen to have a copy of the statute i think it's about eighty four sixty one b that the person the provision i'm i'm trying to make sure that that i have clearly in mind the breadth of the mental exception oh you say it's only as to involuntary i do you are if you if you have it could you could you give me that the text of that and read it to me it's pretty short i think