six that he felt that the claimant could and i quote go back to work but would have to have lifting restrictions dr joyce went on to testify one question specifically asked why it was he was imposing a thirty five pound restriction and again i quote that's a very arbitrary number i came up with he goes on to state that the point is that he probably can't do very heavy lifting but he can do most of daily activities dr joyce went on to testify that following in surgery he has stated that the effect that the claimant would be physically better able and capable of performing his job and prior to the surgery and prior to the surgery the claim that had a fifty pound it was clearly stated and i briefed i think when i went back and looked at the record petitioners exhibit number three and i'm sorry i don't have the actual number there's a letter from the employer to the claimant and in the letter the claimants it  time period that you it was retired three days off work but if you correlate that to the medical records it says also in that letter that you've gone back to work for two hours a day if you correlate that to the medical records that would have been on february fourteenth of two thousand and one when dr exact words that it was a very arbitrator number three number and that he felt that if the testimony was that the point is that he can probably can't do very heavy lifting they can do most daily activities to me he that i think that given dr joyce it's ultimately has to morning that it was arbitrary and that he felt that he could do most active these daily living which didn't include very heavy lifting i believe that based upon his testimony that he didn't lose undertake a job search while undertaking this job search he was receiving a disability pension the claimant has defied that under the terms of the disability pension if he took full time work there would be an offset to that chose part time employment part time employment with his own personal choice because he didn't want to undertake the set up fund that pension benefits and in fact he did later test ever he testified that at the time that he accepted the job from sales he was interviewed he was not hired wasn't his testimony that he did in fact lie full time when he applied for full time work after he accessed his forward to early full retirement pension he did actually testify that there were i believe there were two circumstances where he had implied applied for full time work and i think his testimony was approximately a year prior to trial was the last time that he had actually looked for full time work so yes there is some testimony that he lo positions so if there was a job and i went to the job right and there were various times throughout two thousand and seven two thousand in two thousand and nine none of the job was actually in the job like itself it did not designate with or not who is looking for full time a part time employment he did testify that there were a few times or he looks for full time employment and i believe his testimony was the year prior to trial was the last time you'd actually look for full time employment and would say here's why there were some up and it's not fair to say that he voluntarily only looked for there was a pack a full duty job available to him where he would have been able to arial fifty dollars an hour or less can the road i mean you know when you say there was a pool b job available to him goes the record really showed that i mean he would be different if it was presented that he was offered full time and said no i don't want full time i want her coming but all the record shows is there was a full time job available at this place but he got a part time job right but i think the record is pretty clear that you can infer from that that the same job was available to him at the full time basis and he specifically asked if like that during that period of time he was only looking for part time work sell ad i do believe that the commission actually found we've got to be sure which differential yes i do yes really that's the actual the way to do it because of the fact that you were looking at his earning potential his earning capacity we know all of that is always i mean we're kind nested out into the future right so it's always speculation you have to look at the underlying inputs and that underlying input was that i guess you didn't have the ability to make six hundred dollars per hour and eighty one i think this court recently spoke to that in your united airlines case it's at the time of hearing we have to look at all of these factors at the time hearing because we can't we are speculating so we have to look at the underlying  where we're going to get to in the future and it works up to the commission to determine the weight of all this and you move this argument right i think it's more than just the weight though because i think it does have to do with the average amount of what his capacity is  previous to the hearing of january two thousand and ten the arbitrary and the commissioner's looked at this and they actually excluded any t t did during that period in your way to run it there was no evidence that was ever offered a full time position at sales  like infected make to counsel makes it seem like this guy only took a part time job for six hundred dollars an hour like one of those two but the bottom line is he had two part time jobs he went out at the time appearing before the time period of january two thousand  job search could find any jobs that were full time including sales link and it took two full time jobs to combine those into one which to part two part time jobs start and it indeed the commission looked at and in fact commissioner white's decision is is i think very descriptive in her analysis of the of the issues with regard to that time period between june first two thousand and seven and eleven twenty five or seven subsequent to that time when the job search ensued and to no avail unfortunately for him it as far as speed job searches you're right from your best way the evidence clearly shows that the job searches were adequate fact it was precluded from doing so by the school district and even asked after their original termination letter if you could go back and i think the manifest of the way to manifest weight of the evidence clearly clearly shows that the commission employment and because of the fact that he chose not to go into a full time job i think that that choice had to do with his own personal motivations and not his injury it should then therefore not  tenshi access to full time employment and they actually knowledge the fact that that full time and climate was in job there because instead all they did was look at his part time wages it was based on this part time when he said that they ultimately calculated