petitioner is owed t t d in a circumstance where there's evidence that she's working and we know in some cases they can and there's also cases where they can't and the first issue that we have is that none of the lower course based on our reading of it applied or even stated the right rule or supreme court case from about thirty plus years ago it needs to be addressed to reconcile at the very least by the supposed court because it's a different set of circumstances with them in min the interstate scaffolding case itself spoke to certain sets of circumstances where m m i may not be the dispositive fact and we believe this is one of those cases and we didn't because what you had is evidence in terms of testimony and some surveillance to suggest that she's working there's also corporate records from claiming to be temporarily and totally disabled meaning one cannot work or is on able to work and then there is evidence suggesting that the individual is working and then my name is not the order dispositive test at that point in time we're not arguing about the stabilization of one's physical condition  what we find because of the evidence of work is that they are not arguably totally disabled thus the court undertakes an analysis to determine whether that work is of the quantity quality and dependability to render one no longer totally that do we i think it's a distinction without a difference i think work is equated to the stable labor market you have to look at what the nature of that she goes to the place she helps your daughter an occasion three days a week she goes there and her primary function is to work your grandchildren playing and babysit for him well her daughters are working just because she owns the place  that that's where characterization and one that the commission adopted but there are other facts other evidence in the record that are not contradicted i e her ownership interest in it the arbitrator that she hires people that she's the one who will also handle some customer service when she's there and hence in the form of  well they certainly have the arbitrator certainly didn't include that in the decision and the commission rubber stamp it but there is evidence in the record you're right your honor that she did those things and so the two sides whether the level of work that she does is within a stable labor market but that is part of the stable labor market test you are you are applying it but only one of the several factors that are included in it it's not just the quantity it also looks of the dependability of the church look at the macro economic version that's one of the things that they didn't don't change when he talked about how real estate brokers compete against each other with sort of flower shops we go back and forth and it is in dialogue all morning but it didn't get to the point i was trying to reach in the arguments or the very legitimate going back and forth was her presence there to me constitute a return to work and i think what he has seen is is get into the test well yes but the labor market test talks about the work that's where it comes from ok what i'm trying the test and we don't see it i just put my tongue here but you continually refer to the stable labor market half give us the rules of that test and the source of that tough zenit was your source quantity quality and dependability of the work made can you state the rule that that is the rule the rule is has this individual return to a reasonably stable labor market and then look at the market ok so you're saying if x then y that's a rule if that individual has returned to work in a reasonably stable labor market then they are to be denied t t d yes the rule make what i'm getting at here you know putting aside the very cogent remarks here that have been expressed in terms of whether or not there in fact was a return to work and b the commission certainly made its determination that there hadn't been on the facts of this case this venturing out into what i would consider to be new waters that being  empowered to make the call on whether or not the threshold issue of whether there's been a return to work has been met in this case there were i suppose facts on both sides if you could call it adopt that interpretation because you've got to say does this level of activity we perform on the claimant does it rise to mostly labor market out here on a council wants to play a game of gotcha because the commission did not utter the magic words no where in this decision does the commission use the magic words reasonably stable labor market and yet the sentence that justice hoffman just quot and on which i relied very heavily essentially articulated that test using other for bitch well aren't you falling into your opponent trap by saying that those are magic words that have to be mentioned no my argument is the opposite i'm saying we're not here to play a game of gotcha and to look for the utterance of magic words to say that their magic words results in some inference that they are necessary and that let's clear it up for the practitioners number one number two just reading from the decision middle of the page in support of the decision for temporary total disability she performs no will occasionally assist her daughters by babysitting answering the phones or trading faxes or assisting customers of the shop is busy and at the bottom it is apparent the petitioner's partial ownership interest in a local flower shop does not constitute a return to work the argument is broader than partial ownership interest that goes towards also the quantity and quality of the min two sentences balloons or trips to the flower shop to visit with an occasional uses two dollars are spring in infrequent yet every time the the surveillance guy went out there he found her working there