simple issue in this case or why we're all getting to a significant amount of bags up until the point where my client was terminated and what the evidence in this case in respond over the employer and the employee here as to what standard of review we have it is my belief that the question here is whether or not interstate scaffolding would apply in this situation there's still doubt that my client was charmides whether or not he was terminated for because under the principles of interstate scaffolding even though we are talking about teaching these here under the principles of a case i may ask you if you extend it under the principles of a case if you would still be entitled to any benefits they pointed that out now the surveillance video and as we know there's no discovery so i don't necessarily have the surveillance video to give to mr patel as far as the f c c he was aware of the f c c he discussed dr gordon's opinions and their testimony so he was aware of it they think they did wrong his opinion out they didn't adopt his opinion but i don't think it matters it really comes down to can he return to his usual and customary line of emp evidence to support a denial of vocational rear that the f c has to been adopted by a medical doctor i don't know that there is one but there needs to be medical support for one of the decision of the commission and all the d under the legal fit there the commission has this fast experience in dealing with medical conditions and all sorts of things and that we can't second guess them because they have the vast experience robbing job he had would have been medium to have a duty so i don't know the commission did not adopt that part of his decision i mean they want to doubting his overall conclusion because they threw out the fact that he didn't see the surveillance commission decision rested on credibility determinations he applied the manifest weight standard and found that the commission decision was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence i think counsel's argument fails because she equates that would have been written which doctor you said he would have written restrictions consistent with the feb of c e after viewing the surveillance the only restrictions were against squatting dealing problem and does not require th record that he could not perform the job even with those restrictions no i don't believe there is any evidence the only evidence that was presented as to whether or not he could return to his full performance of his job was from petitioners expert at the commission weighed his credibility and determined that because he had not seen that f c e from february only relied on dr gordon could not seeing the surveillance d v d s and h work processes in december which is very consistent with what dr daley had proposed that six months after the last surgery he would return to work six months after that surgery he had the f c e it placed that said that he met or exceeded the abilities of a welder and i think this is a failure of proof case i think the commission decision is supported by the manifest weight of the evidence and i think the circuit board right and i would ask you to confirm and if you have no further questions way we have that test story for him and then can prescott from caterpillar testifying they would have had multiple modified duty jobs available for him and we were sure you know that silly testimony has some kind of power is if he could not return of the usual occupation it's could be returned to completion not you as a boy of caterpillar i'm looking for the evidence that says he couldn't and i think that sends all of the