the one claim to is an individual who is incapacitated or i am able to partially perform their usual and customary line of employment with restrictions from t i think it is i think it's a very unusual fashion ways specific yes i mean in touch i because i understand that he is not precluded from his line of employment per se but he is precluded from participating in you work the same hours and he had the same opportunity to get the additional cap and situation for show time for double time the increase in the base pay in and of thank you thank you being he makes no mention of the fact that what he is asking this court to do is to really weigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses it's with that is distinctly a function of the  commission and this case and he also ignores the fact that it's it's the burden of proof is on the plane now the plaintive presented testimony from only two witnesses himself and a mr ed golet who was a union journeymen stagehand who worked at rubin here and was the electrician department head that was it now there were medical records submitted which were all in the record but there were no there was no testimony from any medical providers there were no dep is evidence that positions there was no tasking of the opinions of those doctors so that everything their counsel argued about those medical records was his job based upon really anything in the record except reading what he wanted to read into those  records and there was no test money from a vocational specialist now one of the other key and and the entire argument rested upon the fact that really the only fact that plaintiff's self restricted himself from working there wasn't most articulate way of saying it but he made the decision not to work at ravinia nobody told him that he could it so i think that's an important point to remember and that is one of the key points in this case as a let me ask you this i mean yes the argument can be made he's still in the same profession the same  work that he was before the accident i think that we get that what about this first assist case where we had a firm the commission's work of that was differential to a nurse who was an operating room nurse well first the says it is very different in that case there was a conclusion that all registered nurses do the same job and basically get the same pay it's the same thing and in that pace she the claimant had been an operating room nurse which was a very high rate of pay on the registered nurse scale and you know she was injured while working pair she was placed on permanent restriction of lifting twenty five pounds and no activity of the shoulder by the doctor there was no contest about that and not offer her a job in those restrictions that she was terminated now she requested vocational rehabilitation services which she received and she eventually got a job as a clerical nurse which only paid nineteen dollars an hour as opposed to forty three and the testimony demonstrated that the different nursing positions do not perform the same functions of the same profession in that case we held they do not perform the same functions so what about the argument is he can't perform the same functions that he used to be able to perform it is ravinia in the other demanding venues well that doesn't really  inclusion doesn't really fit in with the evidence that was presented to the commission and reviewed by the circuit court he is and he was and still is now i don't know to this day but up to the time of the arbitrary proceeding before the arbitrator he is a union journeyman stagehand and there was very competent testimony from the by the commission but setting up shows ever be it is not this is the same as setting up similar shows at rosemont and that it is heavy work but it's how we work at all of bankers there can be anywhere from four to six to ten some i trailers of equipment that has to be unloaded whether rosemont theatre united center all state arena or rivendell and there is no his testimony was there is no rule on what is stagehand must and if it's too heavy you get help from somebody else and he testified that if you can live twenty to twenty five pounds you can do your job and there were no restrictions from any of the claim that there was no reason or you know other than his own testimony that it's more than minimum twenty one that's right because he didn't record those restrictions to any of this so what was it really that subjective because wasn't the there is talk of a he could not perform it to him frequent pushing and there's a calculation there wasn't that in there isn't that some objective measure of restriction well that tossing cases you know all of those cases where the claim then made his own decision not to do the work and accept less hat and that was not has never been an  acceptable means of determining an airman but you don't really even have to get to that issue because he's working as usual and customary min let me ask a pointed question how do you define usual and customary liable point he's saying make usual and customary line of employment is working at ravinia in other venues without was a so if i really can't work at every venue isn't that affecting his customary unusual quote unquote level one has but he's the only one that's saying and it has to be taken in the context of all of the evidence and i mean i says be alluding to this as we evolved into a lack of proof case that could prove that he cannot work it any more than he could work somewhere else so how do you respond to that argument i can respond to the report but if there's only one piece of evidence that says this man is on the street and it is the report from bernstein and nobody reserves why do i say that because bernstein flies in the face of the objective findings  analyzed and quantify in and have c e ten days before bernstein bernstein's not believe because his report does not include a measurement bernstein is not show that the injury caused the change in this man's bag that necessitated the restrictions that prevent him from bowing to the venue's that were always available to him it's a interesting argument that counsel makes that somehow we should request the vocational training the law doesn't say that the commission rule seven one one point zero and section six of the  the burden on them to the resenting question but just to make us all feel better when the world would a guy who has a high school education who works the number of hours he did in a wonderful job nobody raised they had until right and they ask the point all of these things have been removed from him he doesn't have a choice anymore if you really look at the hours and by the way exhibits seventeen eighteen nineteen calculate the hour someone responde