the issue in this case is whether the worker's compensation commission and choose to make an award under section eight d two of the act for an injury wherein there was a surgical repair to the shoulder the claimant goes back to work doing the same job he did before he's released from medical care there's no evidence of any real impairment it's an indicated in the records basically those students at this bit evidence is what that establishes that he was not prohibited from pursuing his your duties he returned to work he did his job there was no follow up medical care he told his doctor he was for permanent partial disability unless there is some injury and the obvious purpose of this decision of the commission is to obviate section eight he read let's move to another section where we agree with this is for us to decide but and i would not say that and there's an example of the lucetta case where they made an award for a back injury on the basis of legs and there are many cases that are at their existing that look fracture and sometimes the commission finds that to be a leg injury and sometimes they find that to be a foot injury but it's for the commission to determine but again it's a member not a loss of use of a person as a whole and i think that the minor fact which we defer to and give great credence to the commission's decisions regarding medical issues causation nature of disability etc fine if they want to determine that it's a loss use of a person as a whole they should not cite their own authority that is really not presidential to the issue in the case and certainly  another provision that would fall into the general provision in this case yes the commission doesn't say that i understand that ok they had they had the opportunity to rule that way but they did not so you're saying he's all be that they should not be allowed to enter an award site commission president that doesn't that is does not support what they're saying all these people had losses of trade one person had a  questionable whether she was coming back to work or not you know the example of the classic example is the garbage man who can't lift more than five pounds you can't be a garbage man anymore that's a loss of trade that clearly would be worth two hundred fifty ways it would be a man as a whole that makes sense at the time the arm would have been two hundred thirty five b so it's actually in excess of one hundred percent of anon i've seen the commission as the finder of fact did not make the reasonable inferences and coming up with their decision the reviewing court in this case should reverse the decision of the circuit court reversed the city decision of the commission and remained it to the commission for entry of an award on the basis of loss and use of an arm is appropriate are there any question that they thank you were as a heavy duty operator of an operator before that he was a laborer case basically boils down to disability evaluation which generally is within the province of the commission in this case the call or in a lengthy day i'm not going to spend my fifteen minutes arguing the whole case i've promised but there were significant issues significant testimony as to how we had to do a lot of different things differently a lot of things left handed even though th duties and that does happen there are companies that take the require full duties to go back to work this guy was definitely a go getter and someone who's determined to get back to work if you look at the no from physical therapist what's your goal hundred percent recovery no and atrophy and weakness in the right shoulder girdle i mean is a very significant shoulder injury and if i can if you look at the g e case which was cited your honor that deals with deaver says a eat all the while i'll admit there was an eighty one case but talks about the legislative history we've only had a decent one nine hundred seventy five and it talks about the fact that schedule lost to such as eight are not favored anymore the strong movement was for eight d awards and in this case i think the commission's finding that he was partially incapacitated is clearly shown by the medical evidence that he can't do things like he did before although consider admittedly he does do full duties in effect the employer in their brief admits he's partially the shoulder is clearly not an arm an answer to that question it certainly controls the movement of the arm and the cases we cite the luciana case the other cases make it clear holding is that the commission has discretion they could have made it on a case but the major's shoulder case and i don't view i think the issue is is there evidence to support their award under eight d two and there is and admittedly the commission only decided under the partial incapacity theory but c is an award for a nonmember or not scheduled member shoulder and clearly there is evidence to support that so i think when you use what we think is a correct standard which is the manifest weight standard there is ev and no question he's doing his full duties but the quality is significantly diminished and under that question i think the question for you would be do you think the legislature intended that he should be limited to twenty two weeks in that situation even though the injury for most workers is not usually the extent of disability generally a question of fact for the commission and twenty five years is the first time i've ever argued that they are not entitled to make the decision that it the nature and extent  here no medical evidence supports a body is the whole award the commission relies upon their cases but they don't apply them correctly and you know in my mind it's intellectual dishonesty to cite cases  this injury isn't covered because the next time there is going to be a case up here that the humerus is not part of the arm and it should be a body as a whole award or something like that i  think that you know the reviewing court i think that don't need to tell you six manifest weight cases on something to some extent already you need to regulate the finder of fact that they have to play fairly they have felt plied their cases correctly and you're not going to be reversing the court or the commission in this case will not bring up a case as to whether it should be five percent of a foot or ten percent of a foot they are still going to be the finder of fact with the regard to the extent of disability in those types of situations you agree with this though is that is this a case of first impression of illinois as to whether that injury to the builder is the same as an injury