a has to be physically unable a possibility versus impossibility sense to actually return to work and i play i under i understand it can you just i'm trying to get from you what you think jay's standard should be as i understand it your position is it shouldn't be asked to do something that is although technically possible very very very taxing painful or solely about whether mr jordan or any other client can you know work through his pay i think there's an illustrated example  i think just as important to mr george also testifying that he couldn't actually complete any ship that was long enough to constitute a job and so all of those things underscores the  several cases under yeah this is a remedial axe is intended to protect workers from injuries on the job that fact their livelihoods is not intended to force workers to i don't think he was in pain i think it returned to work just fine i don't believe him that's different than what happened what happened here and i think this is highlighted yet he says mr george view is consistent with th you know as a physical question that would be sufficient but it's not necessary and he's going back over in pain he's presenting a risk to sell to others or he can't complete a ship that also can  and i think it's very clear from this we're particularly the manner in which to judge the l j below discusses terms can not that he's talking about shrigley possible  standard here so what's your response to that the standard in this case where the relief sought was temporary total disability benefits was that the claim it was tasked to demonstrate  inability to return to work i mean i assume you agree that just because this gentleman could technically do his physical requirements of his job if he was doing so in excruciating pain or an to the question that judge bought and i have been asked what do you think standard is that the a o days supposed to apply because i think of assume we we believe that a longshoreman who is in some degree of pain or  is forced to some degree extraordinary effort given his disability would be covered under the act what is that standard the standard is the inability to return to one's work and if the crew be patient with me there are different degrees of disability within the longer d arc that is what the nature and extent inquiry really is concerned with disability along firaaq intake various different forms it can be temporary or permanent partial can't do but it all either is painful elevates the pain or i can't do it for the amount of time that we considered job that seems to be a pretty definitive statement that he is not able to maintain the job that is yet he could do it for a little while but you know to do an eight hour shift or whatever is required the pain apparently increases and  is is from the the opening brief but this is the back of the question believe that somebody is totally disabled despite continued employment if you were through extraordinary effort and in spite of excruciating pain in other words if mr technically capable of working doing so requires quote extraordinary effort or excruciating pain he would be totally to say was that standard it is a high possibility that under a case that involves those facts now would be true your honor disability in nature and extent of it differed depending on the case comes down to an inability to work under the factual circumstances if a claimant establishes a record where he experiences excruciating pain to the point where it inhibits him or her from returning to work and a total disability i mean by the fact finder would be sound i would distinguish this case because the evidentiary d record was put before l g larsen there carry on is demonstrative of the fact intensive nature of each and every longshore claim that is brought to the department of labor in that particular case though the disability was based d on for more than just pain there was multiple doctors opinions reason that in my mind that goes more to the legal standard whether he has a great legal standard of up wondering so i mean i guess what i'm wondering is even if there were error on the legal standard it is twenty is enough that that satisfies the legal standard that's my question but i don't think you can because the problem here is if you saying that mr jordan estonia on the question at issue is