the commission reached the conclusion that the petitioner had resigned his employment with the responded which is not only contrary to law but also contrary to opposing counsel concedes in his brief that the commission got it wrong in that they imposed a burden upon the petitioner to prove he had not resigned when in fact that burden of proof rested upon the respond it and the majority opinion of the commission clearly indicates one of their reasons for taking away the t d award was petitioner did not prove he had not resigned which of course he had no duty to do also dr williams dr williams is the i am a physician that claimant told him he had a given a two week notice in february twenty four team did william say that the claimant told that that statement does is found in dr williams report it is there right after that statement is the next statement which says petitioner got a call on march th two thousand and fourteen telling him he no longer had a job with the respondent which is entirely consistent with the petitioners testimony at trial and i would also like to point out your honor that if in fact petitioner had given his two week notice in february clearly evidenc ing an intent to quit that two weeks would have expired before he ever got the telephone call before he ever went to get his m r i or before he ever heard about the i which was excuse me he did get his m r i on march th so that clearly would have been two weeks after he had allegedly given his two week notice so the fact that he was still there working clearly evidence that he had not given his two week notice back in february i think that dr williams got that either from the respondent very took something out of context at the time of the section twelve examination i also would like to point out that the earliest legal standard imposed upon the petitioner on this issue warrants a reversal all by itself i cited the case of freeman coal company vs the industrial commission in support of this argument in freeman coal company the commission issued an erroneous decision saying petitioner had not met its burden of proof of course the commission got there long and the court reversed it same think should happen in this particular instance the nd reason given by the commission in support of it erroneous finding that petitioner had resigned is the testimony of mr hahn and honan who is the only witness i believe you testified on behalf of the respond and mr hardin merely stated they responded had a light duty program available and chances are petitioner remain employed he would have had a light duty well the problem with that is more on hind end mid it he had never talk to petitioner about his employment status it never seen any documents about petitioners alleged terminations and he doesn't know who talked to petition rest of his testimony is worthless because he didn't know in the last factor relied upon by the commission in support of its t t d decision was the point you just raise your honor net is there is a statement in the i am a report saying petitioner gave his two week notice in february i would like to point out that what the commission failed to mention is that when petitioner st saw the treating surgeon dr mark a greeting approximately one month later he specifically told the doctor and it's mentioned in that office as a note that he had been released from his job and this was in april of two thousand and fourteen again approximately a month after petitioner got the phone call saying don't come back to work and mid during trial he had made some comments to people they were three he and his wife were thinking about quitting and going back to pennsylvania but the fact is they never went back to pennsylvania until the fall of two hundred and two one hundred and sixty two and a half years later and as i pointed out in my brief for someone to give their notice under the circumstances under which the commission claims petitioner quit his job is really absurd he was still having a lot of problems with his hand he all to mentally underwent surgery if he's having financial difficulties why the heck would he quit and stick around for two and a half years try to find a job where in a split when he still needs medical treatment it makes no sense whatsoever to believe petitioner really quits job and the other thing is respond produced no documents supporting a resignation they did not produce the person some unit manager names got who allegedly is  i pointed out he really didn't know anything so when you contrast that with what the petitioner did and what the petitioner testified to didn't go back to pennsylvania for another two and a half years he claims he never gave his notice he never signed a document he never submitted a letter and the bottom line is the commission's decision on this issue is contrary to law contrary to the evidence and needs to be reversed nd issue i would like to bring up is the commission's decision to vacate a minute man as a whole as a ward and give the petitioner thirty percent of a hand i would just like to point out a few things one commissioner tyrrell's dissent really got it correct court should follow his recites of the facts and his logic the arbitrator put together a very detailed twenty page decision she's the one who awarded the thirty percent person as a whole ward no i am a doctor nobody from the respondent ever questioned the results of the functional capacity evaluation or doubt the treating surgeons reliance the consistent so regard to the p p d issue i will rest upon what is in my brief and in the absence of any questions i will court beginning with the issue of the t t d which is where counsel stars that's what i where i will start no need i think really to belabor that on the actual case law interstate scaffolding controlling the issue of the the real issue is you are dealing with whether or not he refused to work within his restrictions whether or not there was a resignation and whether or not as a result of the resignation he refused his restriction and also pointed out  permit in his testimony that he did in fact philco employees perhaps even a supervisor that he was intending on leaving the state some point and was considering separating them but the responder with the respondent well that would n according to his testimony he did not resign and i don't think hypothetically thing that potentially are going to leave would be considered a resignation no but whomever gets back to scott honan scott alone was under the impression that he had resigned that was what his testimony was and his testimony was that it was our understanding mr comey siac had in fact resigned and put in his two weeks because he was moving out of state now counsel does bring up the issue with why would he quit if you was having financial troubles well my response to that is when he was contacted on march th two thousand and fourteen and said essentially work seventeen your resignation remove you know your two weeks he didn't voice any objection to that if he was truly having all of these issues financially which i don't doubt that he was why wouldn't he said wait wait wait wait wait i'm not resigning i don't need this job i'm still have to be under medical care and he really he was working full duty at the time but if he truly had not resign and was having financial troubles and why would he have sent something to the person who called and said no no i did not resign i want to keep my job and there's no evidence that he did that  and during march and april two thousand and fourteen he was working full duty until the point there after when he begins to see dr greetings or dr gordon did have him at full duty and the m r i was taken shortly d thereafter comes down to an issue of the commission simply judging the credibility of the witnesses drawing what they believed was reasonable inferences from the testimony evidence as well as given specific legal weight each piece of evidence they didn't believe the petition the credibility of the petitioner it goes into a little bit more of a p p d argument that i'll address your moment but in addition to that they explicitly stated in their opinion that they did believe scott home they found him to be credible based on his testimony to be credible specifically regarding the resignation and then obviously he did also testify regarding the fact that and this is something that i don't think can go unstated here today the accommodations the respondent had given to the petitioner they the history that he provided to dr williams think that for what it's worth dr williams takes a verbal history when he performs in a pet medical examination the portion where that reference is in his report is in the verbal history section which he got directly from  and whether or not but timing ends up working out to when they called him on march th this is this is information come from mr comey c n n there's inconsistency throughout the record perhaps he got it wrong on the day he told her he informed dr williams that you had resign but that's what the record says what it says moving to the issue of the p p p this this is this is strictly a credibility issue in my mind i know there's going to be an issue or at least there's going to be red flags raised as to not having a subsequent i mean there's no medical professional that professional that quote unquote invalidated the restrictions and whether or not the petitioner could return to work in the prior position they held with the respondent and my responses this is simply how the commission weigh the evidence they gave little weight to the f c or at least the results permanent restrictions early f c after green's permit instructions and they gave much more credibility and w  agree with that commission's the commission's decision that this was not a loss of trade and was a loss of use of hand if i can just for a moment i would like to touch base a little bit on the st accident and i now if we are to believe it is pain complaints did not go away then i don't think it's a reasonable for the commission which they have in this case to state that we are unable to separate what permanency would have been attributable to the st accident versus nd act  obviously the commission cited the baumgardner case there is reference in that case to the city of chicago case you know it was somewhat different fact patterns but here i think it's pretty clear  time you worked full duty throughout including after and i didn't have a lot of earning capacity as m r i didn't show much of anything and you know despite his subjective complaints you didn't see any care between the end of july of thirteen until that time of his nd more severe accident in march of fourteen and for those reasons we agree with the vacating of the five percent of a hand that was issued by the commission and some twenty any additional questions we believe that the decision of the commission should be affirmed in its entire raise any objection when he was told in on or had a job my question is where in the record is that we are all confined to the evidence presented at trial which is in the record on appeal and the only testimony about that comes from the petitioner himself who says he received a phone call from a unit manager named scott on the morning of march nineteen tw fourteen telling him you know ongar have a job come here and get your things and be gone and nowhere does it say he didn't have jack nowhere in the record he going to find where he didn't become upset over the fact that he had lost his job so that's the st point i'd like to make a second point is it's not that petitioner refused to work there's undisputed testimony that the respondent accommodated his restrictions when he was employed and most likely would have accommodated his restrictions had he remained employed but they fired so that's really a moot point and the evidence at trial the undisputed evidence shows he was entitled to t t d for over a year and so the last thing is once again the commission employing and loneliest legal standard it was not petitioners duty to prove he didn't resign it was a respondent's duty to prove that he had and they have failed to do so and as a matter of law that finding needs to be reversed now with regards to p i'm sorry mr haq so before you move on ani testify essentially the purpose of this testimony was that there was like i do d program this statement that he understood that the claimant resigned what if any way can we give that state i think it's clearly number one i don't think you can give it very much weight at all i don't think hardly any if any one it's clearly comes from a person who does not have personal knowledge of the situation here understands the titian or resigned well that means somebody told him that he admitted in cross examination he didn't ever talk to petitioner he did talk to the person who was in charge of the petitioners alleged resignation he really did not know so we didn't really know way to that this you just got to stay in the petitioner well you've got the state you've got the testimony of the petitioner coupled with the fact that he didn't move back to pennsylvania for two and a half years coupled with the fact it was dr gordon who ordered the m r i that was performed on march th and it was a very next day when the respondent told petitioner you no longer have a job here so even though dr gordon had it working full duty dr gordon was still checking things out otherwise he never would have ordered an m r i of the person's hand and wrist and of course we all know it was conclude he had quit