insurance carrier on the risk when he was hurt in one thousand nine hundred one or the current insurance carrier homeport is responsible for the permanent total disability compensation and then what the mr price  to lead to the conclusion that yes there was an aggravation and i'd refer the discussion of pages twenty five through twenty eight of our opening blue grief for that the other issue turns on the medical don't think amos says any role and if you know a question like this that doesn't concern that exists for treatment and the other point that i would would urge the court to look at that i think concentrates the focus on this issue helping to you know large logs and help guide them while a crane moves them why wouldn't that well price doesn't describe the work in those terms vertical spinal loading problem in five seconds with the average weekly wage issue i think is we have an actual finding of fact that the the wage earning capacity of mr price didn't exceed his actual earnings which is eleven hundred fifty and give them an average weekly wage of fifteen twenty five ninety that is almost four hundred dollars greater than his actual earnings and more than he ever earned in his work career there was a typo it was the i think the court understood the arguments of port on the issue of causation i just want to make two comments what the argument they're really making to this court is the argument they made to the administrative law judge that you should believe injury or the effects of the ninety eight the work up to nine hundred ninety eight was a car because of that so the judge really was discussing it under that and he did make a technical mistake by saying that the evidence not apply to mr price because he was he did not work substantially the whole of the year and they're arguing on the two look results and overcompensation all these issues which this court decided in the to like and recognize the over his average weekly wage but the question in this case is under section flex pay that maximum rate it can so that applies to only one injury or can't make that apply to  pleasing ninety eight award was actually less than two thirds anyway because two thirds or fifteen hundred was a thousand i think the maximum with a seventy one or something like that fellow or a thirty five i forget what it applied in this case so he's what the judge did or what actually this court revised that around is that it held that the fishing earnings have to be combined with a long shore earnings and the launch earnings were based on what mr price was earning and the wage rate in one nine hundred seventy eight actually because that's the fifty two weeks before he got hurt mostly seventy eight earnings and it was based on his work habits at the time as well he was a bad time he was married to case seventy nine injured eight and therefore he gave him three hundred thirty three dollars for his wage rate in one nine hundred seventy one nine hundred ninety one which is incorrect because the fang factors that affected the ninety eight line also were present lines and he never took into account any of the wage rate increases and a lot of the case that's not really apply in this kind of situation with what the judge was doing was applying the law the life of the longshoreman and stuck mr price with this low average weekly wage for the rest of his life he should have done what he should've done the same thing in ninety one that he did in ninety eight and says that there's panic that this is what it did in loss benefits to the claimant from the date of his injury october two thousand nine hundred ninety one through november of the following year when he went back to work that is now an issue it wasn't something that the benefits review board had to deal with our the record shows that my client the pacific paid time was benefits to mr price up through january two thousand nine hundred ninety eight but that's not the found that there was no permanent disability and the benefits review board affirmed that therefore you don't have to deal with the average weekly wage i didn't brief the average of the weekly one way cheer that was perhaps a mistake but i didn't brief that therefore i'm not going to argue with but i don't think that needs to be argued or discussed really because there is nothing that touches upon that if he would find that the claimant had no any money during that period of time at the time to in the hearing this in the record they bring up for the first time that mr price was missing twenty two days to year because he had  to give up working these what they called tap water jobs i was the first time but that was broached the judge rationally found that the other just money from the claimant process wage records indicated that every year after he went back to work up to nine hundred ninety eight his earnings concrete just and his deposition testimony was that he missed no time because he had to turn down the catwalk job the daily hearing changes that partially i think he also said that it's in the transcript that i did not take the catwalk job but i found something else meaning something else to do in the way of  work we objected to that evidence at the hearing the judge took it under advisement discussed the evidence anyway in his decision in order and found against the claimant on that particular point and the b r d affirmed him and we would ask that credible can't you read between the lines that he's following the rules well i would submit he never did answer the question what do these guys do and the dr burkley understand it correctly you know that's why i think the presumption is important dollars and this is in the space of a finding that his actual wage earning capacity was the actual earnings and not only that there's the additional reason that his work w