commission looked at the other traders decision granting a permanent total ward and they said well you're wrong this is this is not a medical  case in first you're wrong about the back to the man's low back had had nothing to do with this but we're going to give him a never said this man was a pervert at all and they replaced it with another decision that is based on even less evidence they say this gentleman can't find a job  despite his his i witnessed but sincere attempt to to find one why can he find a job because of his severe pain that comes from where and his limping around past use of a cane he can barely get around and can't city can't stand him if she even said he could do all those things and the only opinion that says there's anything wrong with his back is that there again kcal and if you look through his records there's no examination there's no findings there's no and then he had another one without an over accident late arriving in two thousand and two december of november of two thousand and two and the issue there was whether  at that point where at that point we accepted it so the first part of the the findings of fact as to the accident itself and that it resulted in a dis suggesting that he should have a either a wage differential or he should have a percentage of me as a whole but you've obviously loser the fake you don't believe there's sufficient evidence in the record he looked for five jobs or five thousand contacts that put me under because he was medically a permanent toll and that was based entirely  because they just said that the evidence that that evidence did not support the finding and therefore it can't support her opinion she never said he was mad like she said he was medical the commission then turned around and said he is now a medical he's   as far as driving there's no restriction on driving except turning his head and that's because dr ragan said i didn't say couldn't drive but he said that he lost fourteen to sixteen percent of range of motion thousand and five he said he quotes the petitioner as saying he has no big pain and needs a cane for stability commission is clearly there because the only evidence in the record concerns concerning his neck comes from his own treating physician and that is dr reagan's testimony at zero zero one seventy two question there is no evidence in the m r i that supported his continued complaints is that correct answer correct that can reagan was a board certified orthopedic surgeon who did the actual work back pain and uses a cane on those occasions so even he doesn't agree with him but the question is is he in keiko's testimony up anywhere you whatsoever there's no examination there's no findings in anywhere in his record aside from repeating the man's subjective complaints who's supposed to determine if the doctors findings are credible is not the commission's job there has to be some treating physician i know not really he recalls the first descriptions of it there's there's no treatment there's no examination there's nobody knows if he's a treating physician he may have a diagnosis and then the commission could look at his diagnosis and say ok this is pretty thin but here's a diagnosis i will accept it and in any case they say specifically the low because i'm a work related injury anyway the only examination there is actually of this me as well back seventh two thousand and five that this me and needed a cane for a while back and he had no big pains this is true or were years after he had sent in the disability papers to department of human services to get started on his disability payments which he did in september of zero three when he was still treated with with that the regular the man has that's what we're going to do but to come out of left field and pick the restrictions or the opinion of a doctor who doesn't have a diagnosis for him doesn't even suggest where in his little bag he was pain is then then you're i mean you've gone completely off the reservation you've got absolutely normal evidentiary support whatsoever for this opinion the man is restrictions in his neck and he is lifting he can do looked at the way the i was created did it and said there's no evidence for any of this but we're going to affirm another reason but we're not going to put down what that reason is it's we're go out of all period zero none nada because she didn't look in the issue at all she went strictly of the medical and the commission says it's not medical so what's left case being somewhat familiar with it remember please there were two decisions the first nineteen b was on february eighteenth two thousand and four and april twelfth two thousand and four at least that was when the trial occur and during those decisions previous to that decision we still have been f c of october thirtieth two thousand and three from and subsequently reviewed by dr reagan who said he has counsel pointed out there was a fifteen to twenty pound restriction solely on the over the course of the next several years petitioner looked for work when those restrictions as a roaring fire seem to do now i think we're mixing apples and oranges here because i counsel keeps on talking about dr going to jail can i call not in any way affect the ultimate the world now whether or not the back was the robber case or not is really relevant because it has no place after the restriction was placed because of this accident the petitioner looked for work repeatedly in looks or bought a hundred and fifty applications very detailed before the first nineteen b subsequent to that he did three hundred applications within a period of time six months transpired after the b when but occasional rehabilitation was ordered by the arbitrator six months went by with no vocational rehabilitation there after a misfire comes on the scene is a vocational rehabilitation counselor she gets him not running until then this other guy pushing congress and he was of which the petitioner goes to he doesn't get those jobs and the big issue is right if they cut him off because there were two job offers for a job for over two days that fischer didn't attend and as the evidence applications for applications from both those choppers right away they cut him off they said that was not cooperation which is riding penalties there's been eight if a total ignoring of this person's condition of his restrictions he is an odd lot because what happened is the burden shipped to him they have to look for jobs he looks for jobs ms and to simply says there is no stable market that exists and for this particular individual and his take his cane with him everywhere we haven't so there's no evidence of this pain at all and to go on the case is the last thing that the commission the last word by the commission and this is the commission also disagrees with triggers conclusion the accident resulted in lower back injuries if it didn't result in more back injuries why are we here is he using a cane unable to drive a car because of his neck of his medical condition the commission said no reason it is that he's an odd lot because of the never say why and we know it's because he has to have a cane he can't write in a car he can't get transportation none of which is supported by any of his doctors it's all because of the pain in my lower back and so on and the pain is next back to reagan who is treating physician said there's no support for that anywhere in the medical record i can't see any reason for any of this does the fact of the matter is that the commission decision is based on no evidence let alone