wage psychological we sorry to have missed the point you try to make at the very beginning there i'm sorry i don't understand the correction you're talking about well i put in the nature of the case that the commission found that their prayers decision was not against the manifest  delayed but because he wasn't going he was denied benefits because throughout his decision he stated role if he goes benefits may be awarded but the commission found he was simply a imay because he after june fourth two thousand and eight he met with the respondent discuss a possible job which there's no evidence is there offered a job and  you're improving so once again you know the commission and even the commission and their decision remission doctor bears june two thousand and nine report when referring to an on line so you know th also the overturn his decision which i guess is moot according to the commission's decision they found after finally has it in a mile all their issues including medical and temporary child even after destroying nation they sent a letter saying he was trying it because they had no work available for him another issue that we have with commission's decision is the finding regards to the nickel in the first part of the commission's decision they said there was no question as a causation regarding callas neck injuries his shoulder his knee the physical injuries after the commission's so called him in my date whichever date that is he had young rennie search the commission they don't even get that in their decision because they found that issue moot and part of the medical expenses when there has been since relating to that meat surgery which the commission here is funding the mood if there is no question as a cause connection between the needy and the injury the commission should be addressing that point as well and further medical treatment but in the first part of the commission's decision they said there was no issue as to cause a connection between the neck the shoulder the need the other body parts what their issue was whether there was a causal connection treatment session no prior for psychological in fact they sent him to dr there really shortly after the accident doctor really didn't find any psychological factors contributing to his condition no this came out later almost a year later after his accident friday and then but they still denied benefits as it all benefits as of the same date because the city refused treatment this sucks psychological treatment crack however he pointed out eight months after february based on the jury's practice as well but that's my point right now and why i think the commission is trying to fix the archer's decision but they actually did more damage than good they just produce area completely eradicate this isn't because even if you take away because a commission on the site component safe for the sake of argument it's not legit well there's still the issue of the pain management program even if it's not the most optimal program the  and he recommended that the claimant continue on with that program but the commission found that point moot they never even got to that point like raise with the surgery they found the surgery is moot or moot arbitrarily found that he should have underwent the psychological treatment first or went to the pain management program at the psych opponent first before having the surgery but the surgery was to repair the structural damage t court john for so on behalf of their son for motor company this honorable court has has no doubt considered dozens if not hundreds of manifest weight cases previously over the years with similar types of questions that are presented in this case the overtrading the commission in this case were presented with a very large volume about it and in fact have a record that some think well over a thousand pages and that record included facts and evidence supporting positions of honour's are well aware of the standard of review in a manifest way case i'm not going to belabor you by by citing all you know a number of cases on that issue but what i will submit to you is that in this particular instance the legal standard the manifest way standard because he didn't go to this psychological counseling i mean how could that apply to his knee surgery that he later had which was for a structural problem that you know dr beer you're right and we actually testified was reasonable i believe in what the commission had it had helped with the commission found was a given the totality of the evidence including the fact that you had refused to attend the interim disciplinary pain management program that it was that they were specific medical opinion that he did well in fact everybody would agree that the surgery was reasonable reasonable that's that was exactly what i was going to say there's not necessarily opinion to say that it wasn't reasonable to try it there's not an opinion certainly my evaluator the such and twelve evaluator did not say that it was necessary or that it was related and i think parted with commission was looking at is how do you tell this guy if you if you read the claimants testimony the plaintiff's testimony he rendered complaints initially some bumps and bruises and talked about pain in his neck for example or his back but then he goes for a substantial period of time without any treatment of those body parts particularly with regard to the back of the neck which is what he's currently this pain management program that he's getting with doctor a chemical is what he needed was this pain management treatment interdisciplinary pain management treatment he declined to have it he was still rendering subjective complaints was it reasonable for the doctor to try it sure did it work no he still complain about his name he still using a cane he still wimping or on he still as you can't walk so clearly it didn't help so well dr berry may have said it was reasonable to try it he certainly didn't say it was necessary to alleviate his concerns what was necessary was the program that his own doctor recommended an is that and it comes from three different sources it's not just evidence from my side of the case three different sources say that once he does decline to attend our i c that there was a discussion about what he needed and that in egypt in each case according or the testimony of julie bove is in particular was that they got a discussion once he at once all right he was recommended she talk to the doctor the doctor said he doesn't want to go to r e c he's saying he wants to go this program in indiana dr what happened after i see and this is my question but his own attorney once you once you were recommended go are you all right so you didn't go there correct rockwell did you want to go somewhere else yeah i wanted to go to this program in indiana because dr never recommended that his doctor recommended all want including the da mission of ill will being is no longer possibly connected to the accident i mean how does that work there's more to it than that i mean certainly that was a factor that weighed very heavily in this case that the arbitrator felt and the that's because there are other issues about his ability to return to work in the meantime which i can get to in soccer but with regard to the calls a connection part of it at the time of the trial it's all colored by mr colace testimony you can't discount what's in the record with regard to his testimony his testimony he goes back and forth and it rambles on and he talks about these complaints he talks about the fact that he's still using a cane that he's never described he talks about the fact that they would have received two and a half years after the accident that point in time he still can't reach up to button the buttons on a shirt and he can't reach that pierced and there's nothing in the medical record about this and he's still saying he's not driving he can't drive he was restricted from driving at that point in time and yet he's saying that his shoulder because of the hardware in the shoulder is such that he can't reach up and change the gearstick from from park to reverse result and basically said you know because you didn't seek this treatment we'll call it could be proved causal connection but isn't that really what it yes and no i mean a different case if they would have if they would go on the arbitrator's decision that's what the part of the commission hung her head up as opposed to necessarily calling it a term such as an interest practices they were looking at the rest of the totality of the evidence and determining like the arbitrator similar to the arbitrator that it prevented them from determining clearly with regard to his return to work i mean there's been argument about g t d and i think when you talk about a manifest weight standard there's clearly sufficient evidence in the record i mean your honour's may have reached a different decision if you had heard the case perhaps you would have found differently from the commission but i don't think there can be any dispute that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a terminations of t t t as of june and essential maintenance or whatever you want to call it because as a bad date i mean there was evidence in the record that plaintiff was given the opportunity to consider a job as a supervisor need to claim to consider there was evidence in the record of the plaintiff was unwilling to consider return to work in any capacity and again i put verbatim his testimony and in the brief just because it's so clear that use trying to tap dance around a simple question are you would you have taken this job and he goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and never really answer that it's clear from the totality of the evidence that there was a case a case to be made a case  commission accepted that he refused offer street turn to work at that point in time or the capability of returning to work at that time in order to justify terminations of t t t as was found as a bad day so our overall position is that if you look at a manifest weight standard where you're looking at whether or not there is a set of facts that are sufficient to support the commission's decision there are facts on both sides a different trial a fact may have gone differently your honour's might have found differently but on review there was a suspicion  set of facts to justify the decision that the mission ultimately late in this case and therefore we submit that there clearly were sufficient backs to support the decision and the circuit court decision should be thank you you know unless you're chalo i'm ok you're doll with medical treatment here sell your home and move to dearborn michigan so you can go to work there and i think that's a realistic job plus going back to connection the commission to form destroyers entire condition of ill being wasn't related in fact in their decision they said there was no argument about this or entered was injured as a result of this accident the evidence in the record so clearly what the commission's referring to is the site component which is this cory musette component altogether and looks at what medical evidence is what which is the pain management program and say margaret seemed to me was recommended by use on treating physician was needed in order then to determine what it was causally the pin was causally related to the x right because even if you had some type of psychological component that was triggered by the accident  it would still be related there would be a psych component to the claim but even if you remove the site component he so has the physical injuries which he continue receiving treatment for afterwards