forty six of interstate scaffolding where the court specifically addresses it dissipates its exact situation and interstates kathleen the supreme court says benefits may also be suspended to terminate if the employee refuses work falling within the restrictions prescribed by his dockery that's exactly the case that we have before us there's been a lot of a lot of commission laws inter trying to interpret what interstate scaffold meant very few cases from this court yet this is one of those cases where we do need some guidance as to what that case stands for how far does that case go and in our situation we look at interstate scaffolds first again on page one forty six the court says specifically  workforce but after that statement the supreme court goes on and talks about the worker's compensation act nevertheless provides an incentive for the injured employees to strive towards recovery and the goal of returning to gainful employment by on in repeats that statement that i just quoted you benefits may be suspended determining doesn't just say suspend is suspended or terminated if the employer refuses to work to accept work with these restrictions oh we mr collins core has a very complex return to work program where it tries to get people to come back into the workplace even if it's doing something as simple as being in the office agree magazines get them in network mode get them in that work environment because it the cases in many of the articles that are out of the importance of getting employees back into the work environment as soon as possible you get better in talent i know when i did an interview and i go on vacation for two weeks so i don't want to come back to work you get you can imagine in these situations were employees are out of work for a long period of time complicated by injury they don't want to come back to work so the employers understand they have to take actions that bring that employee back into the environment of the workplace as soon as possible for he doesn't accept these offers return to work he's off for a period of time he comes back about three months later and asked for a light duty work within his restrictions at that point the problem is jobs no longer available employer should not have to hold  mean i think there are some factual aspects to it but i think when we look at what the commission said in this case when they spoke about the implications of interstate scaffolding i think that the commission i'm looking at page seven of the commissions their discretion i would say that the commission is entitled to review the facts but in this particular case agri and they have some discretion as to to evaluate the facts but in this case the way the commission worded this language it appears very clear the commission felt they had no choice but to deny the president bush a scaffold and i think that that case allows the commission to make that consider if there's no acknowledgement whatsoever in this decision that they even have the opportunity to do so and i think that restrictions that benefits were suspended because we were ordered to pay for those periods we didn't work this temper in october and november but i think it's critical that it goes on to say or terminate and there are cases of cited within the united states based on these cases this case i think the fact show three offers were made that was enough there may be times when three offers are made but maybe two of them aren't really legitimate offers those cases i don't think we can say there's a hard fast rule of thumb but on the case presented to the port i in this case i think that the commission chose the date december tenth i think it is validate that if it makes sense and i think we can usually point that statement about when you can deny t t v for far ever other ways it's going to have some really amazing affects the loss of stream of income to injure people i'd like to point out that in this case be really tough growing for my client in that first month fed my client was off work gets hard an organist early part of organist he's not represented he doesn't know the compact he's not familiar with interstate scaffolding can you believe it and so mark collins might have been their safety man for the respondent he might have been lawyer with all those things i didn't accept a period of time for which they awarded he asked for work or you wouldn't give it to him that's correct it was a third time here he had to ask i've been offered work get an offer to three thousand for yes for time and employers the real world effect of this case is that employers keep god open indefinitely for somebody and that one of the problems with the interstates kaplan case and they tried to worry about the supreme court was what situation are we creating for employers