an evolution in continental tire the court specifically has language in the opinion that every single factor is to be considered the course in that case the issue is whether or not there was the p impairment reported off and there was a discussion as to whether or not you need to consider every factor and in that case it was said that you do not need to have the p p d impairment report since it's one of the factors a following order to make that p p the determination so if they're not following what the mandates are then you're not just looking at whether there's a question of fact you're looking at whether  at first the court is saying that you need to consider all factors and if there's not a p p the impairment report that you do do not have to have that the words make the p p d determination and in this case what i'm looking at is this when you're looking at all of these factors what does section one point one subsection eat meat for p p d determination and that section one point of the third factor age the commission found that competition or will live longer with his disability than someone who is older there is actually no specific evidence in duke records as always considered just this is simply not right and i think when you're looking at other issues in a case because obviously it's not always solely a p p d determination there's evidence coming in for other issues there might be an issue as to whether there is an accident of horses in school there are you know there is other issues in a case where there may be evidence that's coming in but yes it is my position it's my understanding from this amendment that p p d determinations are to be made and make a specific list make a method for determination i think it is bad change that shows the intent some not trying to go outside of the language of the statute but i think that just in general whenever you have an amen them i believe them when the commission is required to give the relevance and weight of any factor that's used in addition to the impairment level on that when they have to describe the relevancy way when i'm looking at first as with the relevancy so what's the relevance of age for that specific level to basically raise the level or you know why do it's not illogical what i'm saying is that i think that you also need to look at the relationship with the section one point one on the where they're saying it has to be based on evidence that's in the record but there's no record brain injury when you're older you have evidence in the record that that person is going to be more likely has and severe affects that someone who's had a brain injury when they're younger because their age when they have it they're going to have negative effects of that my thought on it graphically impacts the level of disability more which is saying well that person is at this age that they're going to live longer a person is alters so therefore it's going to be harder for them to live with it so it raises it you mention had stated that on his upper extremity impairment was going to make him more prone to future injury with the associated loss of income and there is actually no evidence introduced that he was more prone to future injury  up we've just met earlier in the other case you know people representing different constituencies so to me in the industrial sector of our story but then we're to credit them with a certain level of expertise and knowledge in the area of s or take notice of the facts in the context and so to what extent do we impose an entry requirements on that commission just that there used to be a vacuum of approach here in that the only thing that should be considered or we can reduce weight that should be placed in this particular case and permanency would be this i am your report from based upon his his patient in continental attire despite that fact and based upon the zero four factors besides the impairment rating in continental tire the patient in the petitioner was given permanen y and i obviously there was a certain amount of logic that was followed in that particular case and there certainly was deference given to the other four factors besides the interest impairment rate and really that's what i've been five factors that the commission considered when the commission consider the totality of circumstances here the commission guy right in fact the only thing that's been disturbed between all the appeals was the original permanen future earning capacity has been diminished and his upper extremity impairment makes him more prone to future injury with an associated loss of him on the the words more prone future in  problems it really doesn't take a great leap of faith to believe that this is the guy that if he goes back to this type of follow this type of strenuous heavy physical activity is more prone to get injured than someone who would have made that full recovery which just w the evidence of disability cooperate in the dream records i went in the issues that i have with the commission's decision on that was that they actually yes they had evidence from the treating records but then they also referenced dr levin's report which is not the treating record so i think that that information and a p p d impairment reporters are taken into account when they make that medical loving parent waiting and with their lives what you're looking at within the section on cooperate ing the disability shouldn't be confined only to what is actually a true medical record so i think that was the area to consider that additional portion in that section explaining the relevancy and weight but what i want to point out on my point with the factors i haven't really disputed as far as the occupation factor i haven't you know laid that coming in is what it what percentage they're going to give to that but i do think that they're looking at each of these factors there needs to be a relevant seat at the level of disability and and then obviously the