standard should have been used because in this case questions of fact there are questions of long and then there are mixed questions of law and fact specifically that questions of fact witnesses in the way to be given to the testimony correct but why does it become affect it will determine how does it get involved for the bill this is this is this is a factual determination because of the commission based its decision unquote job search they gave credibility to that statement whereas if you actually look at the record you find that factually these opinions are said he applied to on a weekly basis and multiply that by the number of weeks he said that he had been applying for jobs would have bought into reviewing the records of independent rehabilitation services which according to  demonstrated the claimant had applied for over a thousand positions what about them yeah she said that she did she did that i was whose independent rehabilitation sort of independent her rehabilitation service testimony for us that's that's not disputed this is this was a very because what he wrote in his reports is wholly different than what he said on cross examination which is he was receiving social security disability benefits that he turned away had a job because he said that his arm was hurting by you know you might take issue with will own and you know you might have some problem with their own saying two things i'm saying first that the number one thousand is erroneous and second i'm saying that the court needs to consider the cost policy of the job leads that are pursued just because he sends out a thousand resumes doesn't mean he submitted a quality or a diligent job not if the number of thousands is erroneous what number is correct according to the record before going to the record i believe approximately argument we submitted into evidence the vocational rehabilitation reports offered by mr weller home which documents on a monthly basis petitioners job search and the progress of the results of the meetings with him we also did submit we also did put it on mr while home on the stand and that in part turned out poorly for us but the other portion of his his testimony that what it would mean less than a bill of less than diligent in the petitioner took several months off from his job search to deal with personal issues he cared for his his mother and his grandchildren i believe for several months during the job search again he rejected employment at a job interview he admitted to receiving disability benefits which poses a  i think about that what your argument is to us you have two experts one of which is your own yes saying that he conducted a diligent job search but in cross examination yes and so you're asking us to ignore would i would say first of all i'm not asking this court to ignore that fact this court should certainly consider the fact that he did say that there was a diligent job search men saying that when this court looks at the totality of the evidence all of the evidence they will see very clearly that in the whole this person's one single statement elicited on cross examination runs wholly contrary to the reports that he issued for months ago that we in that the decision that was reached was against the manifest weight of the evidence here in memphis where the evidence shows when you consider all of the evidence that this petition did not conduct the diligence please the court made his mark when he said i represent mr shiner and i won't use a lot of the court's time if the court has any specific questions i'd be happy to address them very briefly i feel that there are two ways to prove an odd lot and we proved them under both of those theories the commission agreed and the circuit court agreed we had our expert testimony to support one theory we had the actual job search to support the other theory there's no question they had said this was a diligent job search it lasted two years if that's not diligent i don't know what is did he take a break to care for his  did i'm not sure why that would really matter i was summarized expediter obviously your opponent has acknowledged it to expert witnesses including one of those own opined that there was a village and his response appears to be yeah that's what they said but the factual underpinnings of the testimony was flawed so how do you just respond to that but i think the record supports what they said i think there's more than ample evidence that he did perform a diligent job search the only thing that they can point to to try and undermine that certainly doesn't rise to the standard that they would need to rise to here if there are specific you know it's within mr wilhelm's reports saying well he cared for his mother and he's distracted by that  and you know a sick relative or he's getting disability benefits from social security and therefore he must not want a job because this is more in the nature of the musings of mr wilhelm than actual evidence there's nothing to support any finding that he was less than motivated quite the contrary everything points to the fact that he was in fact motivated further questions i thank you for your time fact the first test is that the preponderance of the evidence show that the petitioner is unable to perform any but the most unproductive of tasks for which the stable labor market exists and in the co decision they wrote that the testimony of the occasional expert is sufficient to satisfy that test when in fact that is just some evidence and not the preponderance of the evidence and second the commission stated that the respondent must show that the petitioner can actually get a job and in very thorough legal research i could find no cases that set forth that statement of the law and we believe that that's putting a very high burden on the respondent to show that a petitioner actually can secure